tv Hearing on Fiscal Year 2017 Defense Department Budget CSPAN March 28, 2016 2:45am-6:00am EDT
announcer: landmark cases begins this monday nine at 10:00 eastern on c-span and c-span.org. ♪ this is my first election i have been participating in. i think it is important to be involved, especially without end and come in. who said it was the most crowded it has ever been. so i'm excited to be involved in this election. >> the reason i decided to vote in this primary election is because this election season has probably been the most captivating ever.
>> i am voting because i see the economic inequality. it is essential we choose a president who will represent all of america. ♪ announcer: on tuesday, defense secretary ashton carter testified it on his budget request. isis aggression, north korea aggression, and military readiness. this is just over three hours.
[gavel] >> the committee will come to order. like lester, the committee has spent a number of weeks hearing from our military leaders, the intelligence committee and outside witnesses be or asking the secretary to testify on the current budget request. what we have heard reaffirms the fact that the united states faces a wider range of serious threats than at any time in our history. defensector of the
intelligence agency told as the world is far more complicated, far more destabilize, far more complex than at any time i have seen it. currently serving commanders have described the ability of the military we rely on to face that threat as minimally adequate. aviation specialists cannot meet training requirements with less than one third army forces at acceptable level of readiness. the army is not at a level appropriate for what the american people would expect to defend them. those were quotes as well. than half of the air force combat units are ready for a high-end fight. the smallest calmest -- the smallest, least ready unit. this is remarkably consistent, candid, and disturbing. indeed, my on visit with service members recently leads me to expect even these assessments do
not tell the whole story. we often discuss readiness but it is a vague term without meaning for many americans. i have heard firsthand from service members who have looked they wereeye and told trying to cannibalize parts from a museum aircraft to get a current aircraft ready to fly in overseas mission. of getting an aircraft sent to the boneyard in arizona back and revitalized in order to fly missions. the pilots are flying well below the minimum number of hours required for minimum efficiency and flying fewer training hours than those of adversaries that they were spent -- sent to meet. of not having of senior enlisted people to supervise the younger one aunt those who remain working longer and longer hours. and i have heard firsthand from service memberwho have to buy pens andplies like
cleaning supplies and they've are tells out of their own pockets because of they go through the military process it will take three or four months and for them it is just not worth it. i expressed concern last week there was a rise in class a be anotherich may indicator of a readiness crisis. lester, general dempsey testified the fy 16 funding request was the lower, ragged edge that was necessary to execute the defense strategy and we have no slack, no margin left for error or strategic surprise. yet, the budget request for the administration's share is $18 million lower for meeting those basic requirement minimums and it is lastly in the budget agreement of last december. it seems clear the same strategy we assumed would have us out of , whered afghanistan
russia would be a friend thanks to the reset, he and where terrorism was confined to the jd not continue to be valid. that is also the same strategy that has led us to the troops, training, and bases. as congress and the administration are responsible for this state of affairs. over the last fairs, the president and congress have cut ever have a trained dollars from defense and these cuts come at a cost. it is increased risk that our troops will be killed or captured, a mission will fail, or we will lose a fight. our hearings over these last few weeks have shown that this risk israel and there is evidence to prove it is growing. the military is strained to a breaking point. our witnesses today are in a unique position to help our leadership and the people understand the state of affairs. we would all be derelict in our
duty if we try to sweep it under the rug. note, the news brought us again stories of strategies in -- tragedies in a terrorist attack in europe. budget asks for more money to fight in iraq and syria and i think that is understandable and appropriate. that ito not understand does not provide a congress laying out in strategy. that document was due february 15, 2016. february there is no documentation that is on the way. the world is more dangerous. we have got our military too much and i believe it is up to the political leadership to take the action necessary to enable the servicemen and women to defend interests. the men in women who serve in the nation deserve better than
we are now. the distinguished gentlelady of california as the acting ranking member today. >> thank you. >> over the last several weeks, received testimony from service secretaries and chiefs. they have all given us their best military advice and it could not be more clear. the chairman has noted we face a real and growing issue. just this morning, tax and brussels claimed at least 26 lives and others are heard and injured. our hearts go out to the belgian people as they recover from this or ethic act of violence. challenges, aggressive behavior on the part of russia and a rise in china containing the unpredictable korean regime, neutralizing isil
into other manifestations of violent extremism. midst oftely, in the these challenges, we are searching for budget workarounds instead of fixing the underlying programs. the department offense needs to -- the department of defense needs this. you have inserted the fiscal year 2017 shortfall risk can be mitigated, but the dod is a comprehensive, long-term and to terry solution. we must remember the devastating harm inflicted by sequestration on the budget control caps. governmentreatening shutdowns, one actual shutdown, and congressional over reliance produced debilitating fiscal uncertainty. a vote is unclear. the resolution passed last week isthe budget committee
itmally bba compliant but would offer identity increase of roughly 18 billion to the defense-based budget. it would do so by assuming 23 dollarsof overseas would be used for base budget purposes but it would not topline for bba funding. my first question is, which beneficiary would end up a the bill in the shuffle. with the money come from the portion requested for dod? stateit come from the department, which also receives funding to perform vital functions in contingency operations. from both? chairman price's budget resolution also poses another open-ended question. it appears to allow adjustments to funding going forward on the
basis of new information which means at some point, supplemental funding could be used to supplement bba funding levels. the dod, the congress, has to make hard choices especially when it comes to balancing forced moderation with a very, very critical need that the chairman addressed to sustain resident. with this become harder or needs if near time oconee not met.e how would needs be prioritized if needs are not meant? most importantly, what poses the greatest risk to national security, providing funding for base level funding or providing funding for near-term requirements at least initially at levels lower than requested.
we need to carefully consider chairman price's proposal and every other potential adjustment. get flexibility to reduce overhead inch to adjust the health care and benefits structure. the president came to us with a budget that focuses on adapting to the threats we face today including approximately 582.7 billion dollars in discretionary budget authority for the department of defense. uphold our end of the deal in progress. thank you for being here today. i look forward to your testimony. thank you again, mr. chairman. i yield back. pleased to welcome the
germanle ashton carter, dunce for, the honorable mike mccourt, the comptroller and chief of the department. written statements will be made part of the record and mr. chairman, your recognized for anything you would like to offer. >> thank you. thank you all members of the committee. i want to begin by condemning this morning's bombings in belgium. are withhts in prayers those affected by the tragedy, victims, their families, and survivors. the face of these acts of terrorism, the united states stands and strong solidarity with our ally, belgium. we are continuing to monitor the situation including and ensuring that all u.s. citizens are
accounted for. we are ready to provide assistance to our friends and allies as necessary. brussels is an international city that has been a host and if the terrorists wherever they threaten us. resolvek will affect a to accelerate the defeat of isil . i will have more to say about this later in the testimony. thank you again for hosting me today and first that has to be supporting our men and women all over the world, military and civilian. they serve and defend us. i am pleased to be here with chairman dunford undersecretary mccord to discuss president obama's 2017 defense budget, which marks a major point for
the department of defense. as i will describe in detail, the threat from terrorism is one of the five challenges that has been noted that the united states now faces. in this budget, we are taking the long view. a have to. even as we fight today, we must also must be prepared for what might come 10-20-30 years to the road. last fall's bipartisan budget act gave us the much-needed stability after years of gridlock and turbulence. i want to thank you and your colleagues for coming together to help pass it. that budget deal set the size of our budget and with this degree of certainty, we focused on its shape, changing that shape, in fundamental, but carefully considered ways to adjust to a new strategic era
and to seize opportunities for the future. let me describe the strategic assessment that drove our budget decisions. first of all, it is evident that america is still today the world's foremost leader, partner, and underwriter of stability and security all over the world, as we have been in large part since world war ii. that is thanks to the unequivocal strength of the u.s. military. as we continue to fulfill this enduring role, it is evident that we are entering a new strategic era. today's security is different than it has been in the last 25 years, requiring new ways of investing and operating. five evolving strategic challenges, namely russia, china, north korea, iran, and dod'sism are now driving planning and budgeting, as reflected in this budget.
ournt to focus first on ongoing fight against terrorism, and especially isil, which is the attacks today in belgium again remind us we must and will deal a lasting defeat. and immediately in iraq syria, but also where it is metastasizing. and all the while we are continuing to protect our own homelands. let me give you a quick snapshot of what we are doing to pressure and destroy isil's parent and syria.aq the iraqi security forces retook ramadi and are now reclaiming further ground and are simultaneously shifting the weight of their effort toward the north. with our advice and assistance, iraqi and kurdish security forces have begun shaping and isolation phase of the operation to collapse the control of isil.
that was the mission he was supporting when he gave his life over the weekend. providing critical protection to iraqi forces and coalition military advisers in northern iraq. our thoughts and prayers are with his family, and with the other marines injured in saturday's rocket attack. their sacrifice will not be forgotten and our global coalition will complete the mission they were supporting. in syria, capable and motivated local forces supported by the united states and our global coalition have retaken the east syrian town of shoulidadi. this town served as a key intersection between syria and iraq operations. it was so important to isil that it's a so-called minister of war was involved in isil's defense of the town. we killed him.
while our local partners expelled isolate from the town. in doing so, the coalition campaign sever the last major northern artery between raqqa a nd mosul. and therefore, between isil in syria and isil and iraq. we're intent on further isolating and pressuring isil, and clued by cutting off its remaining lines of communication . in addition to local forces we are working with, 90% of our military coalition partners from europe, the gulf, asia, 26 countries and all, including by the way, our ally of belgium. the defeatontributed of i saw. strikes.ncreased we are addressing isil's
metastases as well, having conducted targeted strikes against libya and afghanistan. as we are accelerating our overall counter isil campaign we are backing it up with increed funding for 2017, as the chairman already noted, requesting 50% more than last year. before i continue, i want to see if you words about russia's role in this. russia said it was coming into syria to fight eiffel, but that is not what it did. instead, their military has only prolonged the civil war, propped up assad, and as of now, we have nothing whether russia has retained leverage over assad. the syrian people need a diplomatic way forward. one thing is clear, russia's entry into syria did not impact our campaign against isil. along with our coalition partners, we are intensifying against isil in
both iraq and syria and will continue to do so until isil is dealt a lasting defeat. two of the other four challenges reflect a return to great superpower competition. one is in europe, where we are taking a strong and balanced approach to deter russian aggression. we not had to devote a significant portion defense investment for nearly a quarter century. now we do. the other challenge is in the asia-pacific where china rising, which is fine, but behaving aggressively, which is not. there we are continuing our rebalance of the region to maintain the stability we have underwritten for the last 70 years, unable and many nations proffer.nd proffer in a
meanwhile, two other long-standing challenges of threats in specific regions. north korea is one. that is why our forces on the korean peninsula remain ready as they say, to fight tonight. the other is iran because while the nuclear accord is a good in preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon, we must still defer iranian aggression and counter iran's influence against a regional friends and allies, especially israel, to which we maintain an unbreakable commitment. addressing all of these five challenges requires new investments on our part and new and enhanced abilities. we know we must deal with these challenges across all domains, not just the usual air, land, and sea, but also in cyber, electronic warfare,a nd i and s. our reliance on technology has
given us great strength, but also given us vulnerabilities which our adversaries are keen to exploit. key to our approach is being able to deter our most advanced competitors. seen tohave, and be have, the ability to make sure that anyone who starts a conflict with us will regret doing so. in our budget, our capabilities are readiness and our actions, we must and will be prepared for end enemy. russia and china are most stressing competitors as they continue to advance military systems that seek to threaten our advantages in specific areas. we see them in the south china sea, and in crimea, and in syria as well. in some cases, they are developing weapons that seek to their missions rapidly before we can respond. because of this, dod has elevated their importance in our budgeting. in my written testimony i have detailed how our budget makes
critical investments to help us better address these five challenges. we are strengthening our deterrence posture in europe for investing $3.4 billion for our european reassurance initiative. is quadruple what we requested last year. we are prioritizing training and readiness for our ground forces. emphasizedant matter appropriately by the chairman. and reinvigorating the readiness and modernization of our fighter aircraft fleet. we are investing in the arsenal -- we are investing in b22bilities, like the bomber, and in the arsenal plane, as well as advanced munitions. in our navy, we are emphasizing not just increasing the number of ships, which we are doing, but especially with new weapons and high-end ships and extending our commanding lead in undersea warfare with new investments in unmanned undersea vehicles and more submarines.
we are doing more in cyber, electronic warfare and in space. investing in these three domains a combined total of $34 billion in 2017. among other things, this will missionld our cyber force, developed next innovation prepareic jammers, and for the possibility of a conflict that extends into space. will keep insuring or dominance in all domains. as we do this, our budget also seizes opportunities for the future. that is a responsibility i have to all of my successors. to ensure the military and the defense department they inherit is just as strong, if not one i had the the
privilege of leading. that is why we are making increased investments in science and technology, innovating operationally, and building new bridges to be amazing american innovative system. we are building the force of the future because as good as our technology is, it is nothing compared to our people. in the future, we must continue to recruit and retain the very best talent. competing for good people for an all volunteer force is a critical part of our military edge and everyone should understand this need and my commitment to meeting it. because we owe it to america's taxpayers to spend our defense dollars as wisely and responsibly as possible, we are also pushing for nudneeded reforms across the dod enterprise. and we need to help for all of them. from further reducing overhead and excess infrastructure to modernizing and simplifying, to proposing new changes. to improve acquisitions.
on that subject, i want to commend this committee, and especially its leaders for your continued dedication and strong partnership with the dod on acquisition reform. we have already taken important strides here. and as you are looking to do more, so are we. chairman thornberry, i know you laid out new proposals on this last week. some of you, what you are proposing will save us critical time in staying ahead of emerging threats. that is very important. i know this is just a draft and i appreciate you put it out there for discussion. in that regard, i have to say that th in the current draft, there are some things that are problematic for us. i'm hopeful we can continue to work with you on your proposals to ensure dod has the flexibility needed to apply
principles in your work to addressing all the diverse acquisition challenges we have to solve for our four fighters. i appreciate your willingness to hear our ideas as well, including ways to make it easier for program managers to do their jobs and to involve service chiefs in accountability. i look forward to working together, as we have before. let me close. on the broader shift reflected in this budget. the defense department does not have the luxury of just one opponent. or the choice between fight, between future fights and current sites. -- and current fights. we have to do it all. that is what this budget is designed to do and we need your help to succeed. thank this committee again for supporting the bipartisan budget act that set the size of our budget. our submission focuses on the budget shape, making changes that are necessary and consequential. we hope you approve it.
i know summit may be looking at the difference between what we indicated last year and what the budget deal gave us, a net total of about $100 billion less is provided by the bipartisan budget act of a total of almost $600 billion. i want to reiterate that we have mitigated that difference and this budget meets our needs. the budget deal was a good deal. it gave us stability and we are grateful for that. dod'seatest risk, greatest risk is losing that stability this year and having uncertainty and sequester return in future years. that is why going forward, the biggest budget priority for us strategically is congress averting the return of sequestration. to prevent what would be $100 billion in looming automatic
cuts. so that we can maintain stability and assisting all of these critical investments i have been speaking of. we have seen this before and that same support coming together is essential today. to address the security challenges we face and to seize the opportunities within our grasp. as long as we work together to do so, i know our national security will be on the right path and america's military will continue to defend our country and help make a better world for generations to come. thank you. >> thank you, sir. >> chairman thornberry, congressman davis, distinguished members of the congress, good morning and thank you for the opportunity to join secretary carter in appearing before you. i want to begin by echoing secretary carter's comments on the loss of the staff sergeant.
they are in our thoughts and prayers. i am proud to represent the extraordinary women and men of the joint force. our single most important advantage. ethics things to your support, the united states military is -- and thanks to your support, the united states military is the most capable fighting force in the world. i do not believe we should ever send americans into a fair fight. we must maintain a joint force to ensure our allies and partners and overmatch any potential adversary. this requires us to develop the joint war fighting capabilities, restore readiness and develop the leaders who will serve as the foundation for the future. the united states is confronted with challenges from both traditional state actors and nonstate actors. the department has identified five strategic challenges and the secretary carter has outlined those. russia, china, iran, and north korea continue to invest in
military capabilities that reduce our competitive advantage. they are also advancing their interest in competition with a fallary division that short of armed conflict. examples include russians actions in the ukraine, iran's influence across the middle east. at the same time, nonstate actors such as isil and al qaeda pose a threat to the homeland, the american people, our partners and allies. given the opportunity, such extremist groups would fundamentally change our way of life. as the content with the department's five strategic challenges, we recognize the successful execution of our strategy requires we maintain credible nuclear and conventional capabilities. our strategic nuclear deterrent remains effective, but it is aging and requires modernization. therefore, prioritizing investments. we are also making investments to maintain a competitive advantage, conventional
capabilities. we do so in the context of a fiscal environment that is hampered our ability to plan and allocate resources. despite partial relief by congress, the department has absorbed $800 billion in cuts and faces another 100 in cash and faces another $100 billion in sequestration. absorbing significant cuts has resulted in our under investing in critical capabilities. sequestrationrse we will be unable to execute the current defense strategy. it specifically to address the challenges secretary carter outlined in his remarks. the fiscal year 17 budget begins to address the most critical investments required to maintain our competitive advantage. to the extent possible, it addresses the department's five
challenges. it does so by balancing three major areas. investment in high-end capabilities, the capability and capacity to meet our current demands, and the need to rebuild readiness after extended period of war. in the years ahead, we will need adequate funding levels to recover. continued cyber and space investment in the long-range strike bomber. it will be several years before we restore full spectrum readiness. i know the committee has heard from the service chiefs on readiness recovery. in summary, i am satisfied that the fy 17 budget is on the right trajectory, but it will take your continued support to major the joint force has the responsiveness that ensures our men and women never face a fair
fight. once again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning. and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, sir. i understand you don't have an oral statement. is that correct? i appreciate you being here today. mr. secretary, i think you are exactly right to condemn the attacks in brussels and you are exactly right to express sympathy for the victims. question, especially for this committee, but for the american people is, what are we going to do about it? in last year's bill, section 1222 asked the administration to provide a strategy for how we were going to implement the president's statede desire to degrade and destroy isis. it has been radio silent. we have heard not a word from
anybody. it is not just a matter for the department of defense. it is not just the military who will defeat isis. the requirement was not just directed to the department of defense. do you have any idea of when we will see a strategy on how to beat isis? sec. carter: the brussels attacks reinforce our need to accelerate the defeat of isil. we have a strategy for doing so. the strategy document, the report you are asking for, its delivery is imminent. it is a dod, plus others document. is the strategy in brief this -- and i will connect it to the brussels attacks. i was describing the campaign in iraq and syria, which we are accelerating. we're looking for more opportunities to do so. we found opportunities and i expect this to find more opportunities in the future.
we want to accelerate the defeat of isil in iraq and syria. why? because that is what i call the parent tumor of the cancer. that is where it started. expel kiesel and mosul,m raqqa that will show there is no such thing as an islamic state. we also need to destroy isil in the places to which it has metastasized around the world. the brussels attack reminds us -- and the report will also by the way, how important the military effort is. as committed as we are to that in the department of defense. it is necessary, but it is not sufficient. , weeed the intelligence need the homeland security, and we need the law enforcement. and so do our partners because of the kind of thing you saw in
brussels this morning. so, we have the strategy. we will produce the report based on that. we need your help. in that connection, finally, if i may add a note, we have before this committee and three other committees a reprogramming request that is relevant to our ability to carry out the campaign in both iraq and syria. according to the rules, we have to ask the permission of this committee and three other committees. we have done so. so far, we have gotten different answers from everybody. which is fair enough, but if you could help us, we need to get across the finish line quickly. we have to be agile in the defeat of isil. and that means we have to be agile in this matter as well. i appreciate your help in that th regard.
>> on the reprogramming, all of us would feel better about a reprogramming if we knew what direction we were going. which is why in last year's bill, the request was, tell us how you're going to do this. and then, as he want to move money around and a variety of other things i am sure, there will be a lot of support. but until there is some sort of coherent direction on how we are going to beat these guys, it is harder to have that. let me ask you one other thing is i know other members will continue to explore the topic. you are exactly right, as was chairman dunford, and expressing sympathy for the loss of the marine over the weekend. an increasing number of questions about the truth cap which exist in both iraq and afghanistan, because as i understand it, they are some people who are subject to the truth caps.
then, there are some people that rotate in for a short amount of time and they are not subject to the truth caps. if you are rotating people in every 30 days, to keep below the caps, then people don't have time to get akama committed to the environment. the other argument i have heard is that when you have these artificial troop caps, you don't have the protection. i guess my question to you is, do you believe there is reason to be concerned that these artificial troop caps in iraq and in afghanistan lead to increased risks for our service members? >> thank you, chairman. with respect to the troop cap numbers, there have been no change in that and you are right. people have been temporarily
assigned. nhis has been true here and i afghanistan for some time. they, under the caps, are counted differently, as wel l you know. detail of that here, but we do provide that for the committee. to get to the substance of what you said about everybody -- everybody that is in iraq is properly trained for the mission. that included the marines there. to force protection, that was, in fact, their mission. what they were doing was helping to protect the staging area where we are, and our coalition partners are helping the iraqi security forces. some of the per grades that will
brigades that will constitute the development in mosul. precisely what they were doing was protecting that position. that was a necessary task. we are very sorry about the loss of this number in accomplishing that necessary task, but it was necessary because we needed to position that there. these iraqi security forces, who in the end will be the force takes and holds mosul, they need to be trained. and the need to be positioned. that's what was going on there. >> specific question of how we compromised force protection or other capabilities as a gap.lt of the force i can tell you we have not done that. i have engaged with general
mcfarlane on the ground asking that anything else they need. i will see him again this afternoon. to date, we haven't had any request that the of gone for the president -- any requests that we have got to the president with. we are in the process now of bringing forth recommendations for increased capability as a result of operations in mosul and elsewhere so we can maintain momentum and accelerate the campaign. at this time, i don't have concerns that we have not what forces on the ground that it impacted our force protection capabilities or any of those things. we build the force from the bottom up with those in mind. chairman: i appreciate that. to me, it makes no sense to put artificial troop gaps anywhere. just as they trust you to continue to follow this question, it is something the committee wants to continue to follow as well. , youquestion, general
heard some of my comments earlier about the readiness issues. let me just offer a handful of other quotes on the record. jennifer mallard said our aviation units are currently unable to meet our training admission requirements, primarily due to ready basic aircraft shortfalls. general allen has testified 1/3 of army forces are at states of readiness. it is not an appropriate level for the american people would expect to defend them. last week, secretary james, less than half of our combat forces are ready for a high-end fight. she later said that air force is the smallest, oldest, and least ready force across our history. do you agree we have a significant readiness problem across the services that, especially for the wide variety of contingencies we have got to face?
dunford: chairman, i do. are my perspective, there three issues. we have the resources necessary to address the readiness issue. then there is time, and operational tempo. the readiness challenges we are experiencing are a result of several years of unstable fiscal environment, as well as extraordinarily high operational tempo. it'll take us some years to get out of the trough we are in right now. am satisfied of in this year's budget is we have met the services have for identified for readiness. we can't buy our way out of the problem, i think the service chiefs probably identified to you in the case of the army, the navy, and the marine corps it will be sometime around fy 20 before the address their readiness challenges. the air force is projecting the horizon as late as fiscal year
28. part of that is again, operational tempo and resources and time. some of it is what you saw in your recent visit down to the second marine aircraft wing, where depo level maintenance has been backlogged. what you saw in the ring court will reflect -- what you saw and the marine corps will reflect the service sector. that same dynamic exists in each one of the services. >> i think it is important for us, and for y'all, to continue to watch this issue, but also to really understand down deeper what is happening. statistics are one thing, you talk to these folks eyeball to eyeball, and the sense of frustration and concern is very evident. thank you for your answers, i yield to miss davis. mrs. davis: i wanted to go back to a second to the questions that i raised in the opening statement.
i think we grapple with that here. i know we will be talking about co-funding down the line what his contingencies. you stated, equipment is one thing, but well-trained personnel and leadership are quite another. and the latter do take time. we need to work this as best we can. , what statement i offered you have said clearly, modernization and readiness is where your trade-offs are going in the budget process. and i am wondering, with the department's trade-off choices become harder or easier if the needs are supplemented by baselevel requirements. is that helpful?
what poses the greatest risk to our national security? providing funding for near-term o.c.o. requirement initially. the best of all possible worlds we would be funding the base budget at the level we need including o.c.o. for specific overseas contingencies. but that is not where we are right now. we have to be certain other budget requirements whether homeland security, whenever that may be, are also working well within our budget as we move forward. secretary carter: you're right. generally speaking, the base budget haveo.
different managerial purposes. the base budget is for things that are enduring. and o.c.o. is for the variable costs associated with urgent ongoing operations. that's still largely true, but it's not completely true. and you get to your question, one of the ways in which we were able to mitigate the difference between what we last year planned to cash in our 17 budget and with the bipartisan budget provided us was to use o.c.o., about $5 billion net. that is one of the things that brought down that risk associated with that difference. we also benefited from fuel costs, different inflation indices than we expected. what we did with the remaining -- to get to your point, what did we do to accommodate the bipartisan budget act, the $11
million change, we took it out of some procurement accounts, some aircraft, and some smaller programs. we took it out of milcon. let me tell you what we didn't do to accommodate that difference between the b.b.a. and what we planned on last year. we didn't take it out of military compensation. any of our service members' compensation. we didn't take it out of readiness. the readiness recovery plans that the chairman has referred to. we didn't take it out of any of our major acquisition programs. stop any of them. break any multiyear contracts. and we didn't change any of our end strength numbers, targets, as a result of that. that's how we accommodated the $11 billion. that's the reason why the chairman -- that part we managed to mitigate and bring forward a budget that meets our needs. our worry is in the future.
and with the $100 billion cuts that we face. wherever they come from in the accounting, that is the biggest strategic risk to us. mrs. davis: general? general dunford: the thing i would probably add is, you talked about modernization and this year, as we focused on capability enhancements, it was a result of three or four years of not addressing those and realizing that we were losing our competitive advantage against the peer competitors i mentioned, the russias, chinas, and north korea and iran. we knew were we not make those capability investments this year, if you look out three, four, five years we would not be where we needed to be. itm my perspective, isn't so much force structure over modernization. it's trying to get within the top line we have the right balance between force structure and capability with sufficient investment in tomorrow's force to make sure that the force that
we have today and that i'm proudly able to say is the best in the world is the best in the world in 2021 and 2022. that's why i think the secretary directed us this year to make a slight course in speed direction in terms of how we are investing our funds to get better balance between today's fight and tomorrow's fight. mrs. davis: i think, mr. mccord, as well, i think what's maybe understandable in terms of the defense budget isn't understandable to folks looking at their budgets in other departments. that's partly where the rub comes. mr. mccord: that's correct. just one point on your earlier question. to get a marginal increase in o.c.o. this year without knowing we can count on it is pretty self optimal for us, in . rms of planning if we knew that it would be taken care of permanently, that's better. mrs. davis: thank you. >> mr. jones. mr. jones: thank you. mr. secretary, i'm going to take you in a different direction. totally different subject. i want to personally thank you
and especially thank secretary robert work. i have spent 13 years of my life trying to clear the names of two marine pilots who crashed a v-22 osprey in arizona on april 8 of 2000. yes, your secretary carter, i want to thank the secretary publicly because he did something i could not get the marine corps to do. and that is to look openly and be -- information we hadentation put together, working with which wereny of the marine pilots themselves. they were aeronautical engineers who came to the aid of saying that at the time if you remember that commonsense -- secretary of defense cheney wanted to scrap the v-22 program. there was a lot of pressure, a lot of push by the marine corps to make sure that the v-22 was there for the future.
when i reached out and found secretary work, he spent the time to meet with me and spent several hours, days researching all the information that we had put together, a team of experts helped me to put it together, and then he came back with his evaluation that the record needed to be corrected. that it was unfair to colonel john, pilot, and major brooks, co-pilot, whose wife brought this to my attention in the year 2002. i want to say today that you have brought peace, secretary work, and you, have brought peace to the families of john and brooks. i believe sincerely that john and brooks are now resting in their graves and they are resting peacefully because of what you and secretary work have done. this has gotten national
attention and i have talked to trish, connie, they are hearing from marines who are now retired. they are hearing from friends from years' past who said, hallelujah that now the truth is known and those two pilots will not take the blame for what was unfair at the time of the accident. i want to thank you publicly and thank deputy secretary robert work because the truth is now known that they were not responsible for that accident. it was a combination of many, many factors. i will give you a chance to respond and then i will yield back the balance of my time. secretary carter: thank you so much. i appreciate your saying that. i'm glad that the families are able to be as peace now. i will pass that on to secretary work, my excellent deputy secretary. i'm pleased to hear you say that about him but i'm not surprised.
mr. jones: thank you, sir. i yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. larsen. mr. larsen: you have an obligation, certainly a right to respond to something that former deputy director c.i.a. said yesterday in response to the question. he said that isil is winning based on two assessments. one, although there's less caliphate territory, they seem to be spreading their influence beyond the caliphate territory. and then of course, in direct reference to the attacks in brussels. i wanted to get your assessment about whether you think isil's winning, and if not, your assessment of the former deputy director c.i.a.'s comments. secretary carter: i'm not familiar with those comments. as far as the campaign is concerned, i'm confident that we will defeat isil. and that we have the momentum of the campaign in iraq and syria. i gave you some of the details
about that. and we are prepared to give you much more. we are doing more. we are actually looking to do yet more than that. and i'm confident that that will result in the defeat of isil in iraq and syria. as i said, that's necessary. it's not sufficient as the attacks in belgium suggest. let me ask if the chairman wants to add anything to that, but isil will be defeated. we have a strategy to do that. i'm sorry the report hasn't gotten to you. but we'll shortly and i'm confident that strategy will succeed. general dunford: congressman, i'm not complacent about the threat of isil and recognize the spread of isil, particularly over the last 15-18 months globally. with regard to syria and iraq, in october, i appeared before the committee and at that time i think it was fair to say that isil had the momentum. since that time, they not only have less territory, they have
less resources, they have less freedom of movement. we have reduced the number of foreign fighters that are actually be able to fly back and forth. frankly, i think the narrative is less effective than it was some months ago. but this is a long fight and i'm confident in telling you that we have the momentum today. i'm also confident in the end state to secretary carter identified but this morning was another reminder there is a long fight ahead. it will require not only the military effort to deny to limit to the enemy, their freedom of movement, to build a capacity of regional partners, but require a much greater cooperation amongst intelligence organizations from nations. over 100 nations have foreign fighters in syria and iraq with over 30,000 foreign fighters. so the cooperation of all those countries in the intelligence organizations, law enforcement officials, as well as the military coalition that would put together in iraq and syria and conducting operations elsewhere is all going to be critical. it is going to take some time before we get there.
i am confident, at least today, that we have the momentum in iraq and syria and taking actions outside of iraq and syria to keep pressure as we tried to keep pressure on them \ it will bentries, ital necessary we do the same thing trends regionally. mr. larsen: movin to the budget and unfortunately for you, you don't get to be here for the implementation of the longview to help us deal with the actual long view. we have been having this debate a little bit. i'm wondering how you envision affording these incredibly expensive programs that we have outside, not just outside of this budget but outside of the five years and even 10. nuclear modernization is one of those, but it is not the only one. where we're going to be called upon if we have the fortunate success of staying here to resolve and solve.
secretary carter: well, we can afford all of those. we wouldn't have a started them if we didn't think we could complete them. however, we are assuming when we do so that we will continue to have budget stability. if there is instability for i said, and i think the chairman just said, we are going to have to fundamentally reassess our our needs inet the long run and short run. you are right. it will be future congresses and future administrations who carry that burden. i hope that they continue to give us budget stability as , as we have had now for two years. that's what the country needs. that's what our department needs. that's what, by the way, every department trying to administer programs needs and -- but if we snap back to the sequester cuts, we are going to have to reagan reconsider all of these plans.
we need them and therefore we need the stability. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. mr. forbes: thank you, gentlemen, for being here. general dunford, it's great to have a top uniform officer from the united states before us. i'll direct my questions to you since i only have five minutes. i will ask the questions we've been asking all our officers before us, did you submit your written remarks to anyone for approval or review, other than someone under your direct command, before you had to come before us? general dunford: congressman, i did submit my remarks to the office of secretary of defense , as well as the office of management and budget. no changes were made in my written remarks as a result of that review. mr. forbes: one of the things i heard you just say in response to the chairman was that your readiness concerns were based on an unstable fiscal environment. and one of the concerns i always have, we wrestle with in this committee, is simply this. when we look at whether strategies driving the budget,
the president's budget or whether the president's budget is driving strategy, is it -- the question is, which one is predominant? is it the strategy that is predominant in driving the president's budget, or is it vice versa? general dunford: congressman, this year i think it's fair to say within the top line we were given -- mr. forbes: for the last several years, just as a rule, is it the strategy that is predominant driving the budget or the budget more predominant and driving the strategy? general dunford: i'd say if you go back to the last few years and look at sequestration in 2013, the fiscal environment has had a bigger impact. mr. forbes: when we constantly ask people that have come here, many people from the pentagon , saying the budget is in line with the strategy, what you are saying is basically, the budget has been driving our strategy? general dunford: congressman, if i could give you a nuanced answer. here's what i'm confident in saying. today we have a defense strategy that calls for us to defeat an enemy, to deny another
adversary, protect the homeland , as well as deal with violent extremism. i am confident that in fy 17 that we will be able to do that. mr. forbes: i'm sorry to cut you off. i only have three minutes. i have a document here signed by president obama on january 3, 2012 for defense guidance and he here, thisically in guidance was requested to guide the spending over the coming decade. then i have it signed on january 5, the defense guidance by secretary panetta, and this is what over and over again people have been coming in here , pointing to an saying, this has been directing their spending. and then in 2014 we had the quadrennial defense review. over and over again people have sat where you are sitting and have said that this has guided the spending of the department of defense. has the department of defense been following the president's guidelines and have been basing their spending on these two documents? general dunford: we have. we have, congressman. but what we've been doing is
living year to year and deferring modernization that will cause a bill in the outyears. mr. forbes: and i understand this. let me ask you this. these documents are based on certain assumptions. did either of these two documents account for the rise of isil? general dunford: they did not. mr. forbes: did either of these two documents say our forces will no longer be in iraq and afghanistan? general dunford: they did not. fact, we doand in still have forces in iraq and afghanistan. did either of these two documents assume that we would reset our relationship with russia and that we would be able to cooperate with them? general dunford: we did not foresee russia's current actions in those -- mr. forbes: the assumptions made for these two documents were not with russia? general dunford: with respect to russia, that is correct. mr. forbes: did these two documents account for china's aggression in the south china sea? general dunford: not to the extent we've seen it, congressman. mr. forbes: wouldn't it be fair to say if the assumptions that these documents were based upon
were invalid or wrong that the strategy would also have been invalid or wrong? general dunford: the strategy needs to be refined and we're in a process of doing that, that's correct, congressman. mr. forbes: and also, general odierno, when i asked him this question right after these were put into place, he said we struggle to meet even one contingency operation and it depends on assumptions. and i believe some of the assumptions that were made were unrealistic and positive assumptions, and yet, these are the two documents that helped guide the president's budget in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017. so wouldn't it be fair, general, for us to say that instead of an unstable physical environment, that's a big part of the reason we are in the current situation we are in is because the president's strategies were based on faulty assumptions? general dunford: this year, congressman. mr. forbes: i'm talking about the last several years leading up -- this year's budget is not putting us in the situation that the chairman talked about?
general dunford: if you are if we for thought the current conflict with isil -- mr. forbes: i'm asking wouldn't it be fair to say rather than physical instability, the reason we have a problem is because of a faulty strategy? and with that, mr. chairman, i know my time's up and i yield back. mr. thornberry: mr. courtney. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for your service and your testimony today. i just have a couple quick questions. admir the admiral undersecretary of staff, secretary may this have all appeared over the last couple of weeks and we talked about the question of longview, of the undersea fleet, which admiral harris and general breedlove said at this point are playing zone defense out there because of what's happening in the pacific and north atlantic. this is a good budget in terms of investing or shipbuilding and submarine building.
down the road there is a possibility we'll see a depth at the worst possible time. i guess the question is -- do you agree this is an issue we need to work on, as secretary stackly has promised so that we, again, are able to keep our eyes focused on the emerging challenge? secretary carter: i do agree with that. our undersea capability is a critical strength of the united states. we need to keep that strength and extend that strength and i think the biggest issue we're going to face beginning in the 20's is the beginning of the ohio class replacement. and that is the building once again of ssbn's as well as attack submarines, s.s.n.'s, which we're doing today and we've been stressing now for several years we're going to need some consideration of the need to recapitalize our undersea nuclear deterrent because that can't be done at
the expense of the rest of the undersea fleet or we will erode our dominance. that's a major issue that's looming in the 20's. mr. courtney: thank you. again, we think -- we found some ways to use different authorities, multiyear procurement, etc., to try to again, maximize every efficiency to help in that effort and, again, secretary stakly emphasized that when he appeared before the committee. i'd like to shift gears for a second. first of all, i would like to thank you for your comments what happened in brussels yesterday and also noting that brussels is actually the home of nato and, you know, there's a lot of work that takes place in that city which is extremely important in terms of our national defense. yesterday, the frontrunner for the republican nomination told "the washington post," nato was set up at a different time. i think nato as a concept is
good but not as good when it first evolved. in your testimony i counted three instances, the fight against isil, the continuing efforts in afghanistan and also the european reassurance initiative, where nato is absolutely at the center of our military strategy and operations. is nato relevant today? i guess we need to ask that question given what's out there in the public domain. secretary carter: well, let me begin by saying the following, and i said this before and i'm going to say this again and again in the course of the year. i recognize that this is an election year. i will not speak to anything that is in the presidential debate. i believe that our department has a tradition of standing apart and i very much value and respect that tradition and so i am going to with great respect
, declined to answer any question that is framed in those terms. and by the way, also not have general dunford or any of our -- especially of our uniformed -- mr. courtney: i respect that. i guess the question is the european reassurance initiative, that funding again, is going to flow to the nato structure. that's not a -- secretary carter: it is. it is. it is. and securing our nato partners from particularly russian aggression is the principal purpose of the european reassurance initiative. with respect to the counter-isil fight, the nato allies as individual countries are members of the coalition. the question has arisen whether nato as a group should also be a member of the coalition and that is being discussed right now
with nato. the reason for that being that nato has some force generation capabilities that no individual country has. and that's the reason where the question arises. mr. courtney: thank you for the answers. mr. thornberry: mr. miller. mr. miller: general dunford, looking back to the 2012, 2014 strategic guidance and defense reviews, what specifically has changed in the geopolitical world, and based on those changes, is it safe to say we need to look at falling on what mr. forbes said, recalibration or resizing of our current forces? general dunford: congressman, thanks. i would say the most significant changes, one has been russia. two has been the rise of isil. we talked about the behavior of china in the south china sea,
and certainly the capability and development of north korea have all been a concern. iran remains a concern but quite frankly the trajectory has been predictable when those strategy documents were written. we accounted for iran. but in the four other areas, we've seen capability, development or behavior or a combination of the two that have significantly changed the operating environment over the last few years. mr. miller: and i do think it's important that the american people understand the guidance that was used to set the size and shape of the force and the current guidance, as you already stated, said to defeat a regional adversary and deny other aggressor in another region. however, in your written statement you stated that "the joint force will be challenged to respond to a major written contingency," and that "capability and capacity shortfalls will be particularly acute to the force were to call to a second contingency on an
overlapping timeline." so, i would think that this might suggest that there's a significant risk that the joint force wouldn't be even to execute a single major contingency operation, is that true? general dunford: congressman, our assessment is we can meet the requirements in a single contingency. there is significant risk in our ability to do that. certain capability areas would be particularly stressed, but we can accomplish the suggestives, albeit more time and casualties. mr. miller: the guidance calls for forces to execute two contingency operations in a denying one aggressor and defending the other. could the current force today defeat north korea and denying russia, while at the same time defending the homeland? general dunford: congressman, we would be challenged to do those three things. our assessment is we can do that, again, but it would take more time, particularly in the case of north korea, would take more time and we would see more
casualties than we would want to have. mr. miller: so you had -- the department has cut the end strength and the force structure on the assumption it did have the sufficient forces to carry out the assumptions that are there. so given the current strategic environment, will the department need to revisit, force, size and guidance? general dunford: congressman, just to be clear. in terms of cutting force structure, my perspective is, you know, force structure is one element, but what's most important is that the force structure that we have has the proper resourcing to be well-trained and well-equipped. and so what i believe we've done inside the budget is we've got the force structure that's affordable within the top line that we have and we can achieve the balance between the training, the resourcing, the modernization, the infrastructure, support and the force structure, all those things have to be combined. so my assessment is we are trying to get the balance right as opposed to saying the current force structure is absolutely the best force structure we can have. mr. miller: thank you. i yield back. mr. thornberry: ms. tsongas.
ms. tsongas: thank you, mr. chairman. and welcome to our guests. it's always good to have you before us. and i think today's tragic event in brussels really are a stark reminder of the many challenges that you all deal with every day and that we're here to support you with. and i pearblely appreciated both -- especially appreciated your comments on the need for budget stability as you deal with the challenges of today but also with the need to look forward because, as we all know, and i remember previous chairman, ike skelton, also commenting upon that we plan for today but we never quite know where the next challenge is going to come from. and in the world we live in today, it's clear that they can come from many, many different places. but secretary carter, i also wanted to thank you for your you -- the emphasis you placed on this year's budget on research and development, really knowing it's key to maintaining our technological edge, that in this rapidly changing environment we got to maintain our investments. and as many on the committee know, defense-related research and development has faced a disproportionately large cut
over the past several years, far more than has been required under the budget control act. so i was especially encouraged to see that the department will be investing in two new facilities at m.i.t.'s lincoln lab. as you know, the lab has provided the department with break through you advancements for decades and i thank you for your support of the lab's revitalization and the important role it plays in the massachusetts innovation ecosystem. it's part of something much larger. but i'd like it turn to the issue of sexual assault prevention and response in the military. i've been troubled by a number of stories, including a series in the a.p., and recent stories in "the washington post" about senior officer sexual assault cases, which have called into question the transparency of the military justice system and the service's willingness to pursue allegations against officers.
i understand that the military justice review group's proposal that was shared with this committee by the department gives the department two years to come up with a design for an online system of tracking cases and two years to implement that system. and i would encourage the department to work with all to make the military justice system as transparent as possible. i hope the department will make this system open to survivors and the public as you move ahead. but we have all heard the troubling accounts of victims of military sexual assault who are later retaliated against. those who seek recourse through the system of justice. some 62% of victims have experienced social or professional retaliation, according to the department's own survey data. and i've also read the judicial proceedings panel recommendation of having a standard reporting form. it's important to me that the department track these incidences and hold those responsible accountable, key to maintaining the unit cohesion and all that is part of
readiness as well. so i have my questions for secretary carter. what is the department doing to ensure service members who report sexual assault aren't retaliated against? secretary carter: thank you very much for that question. sexual assault is unacceptable anywhere in society, but it's particularly unacceptable in our military and the reason is this. the profession of arms is based upon trust and it's based upon honor. and sexual assault erodes both honor and trust, and for that reason is completely unacceptable at any level. moreover, to get to your point, as we study that question more and take more action -- and i'm not happy that there is sexual assault in the military.
i'm very pleased that we are taking it on frontly and we need to do that. we need to learn how to do better. the two issues you raised are places where we are learning. retaliation, for example, was something that i don't think -- i think it's fair to say in our department, we did not appreciate the importance of that phenomenon until the last couple of years. and so we are having to take that onboard. retaliation creates additional victims to the victim of the sexual assault. and this can be peers and it can be others who are part of the -- of giving the victim their care, their right, the options and the response that they deserve. and so it's an important new ingredient and we are trying to get on top of that. finally, with respect to transparency, we're committed to that.
you're right. we have made a commitment to you about greater transparency in this matter. i intend for us to carry that. thank you for raising this. ms. tsongas: thank you. i've run out of time. mr. thornberry: mr. wilson. mr. wilson: with the attacks in brussels, it's another reminder we're in a global war on terrorism. it is continuing and i just want you to know that i have faith in you and we're counting on you to protect american families. and part of that is not forgetting 9/11. this is a continuing war. we will be in it for quite a while, but your service, i know i appreciate as a grateful dad of four sons who have served in the military under y'all's command. general dunford, as chairman thornberry has mentioned, we have serious concerns about the state of the marine corps aviation. marine corps aviators and maintainers at the marine corps station beaufort, south carolina, told us how they had
to cannibalize aircraft to get the fleet in the air. they don't have the people. they are not getting the training. furthermore, general robert neller has testified there haven't enough aircraft to even meet our training and mission requirements. i'm very concerned that if they had to deploy tomorrow they'd be sent into a fight unprepared and ill-equipped. how are we addressing this potential or reality in the inability to have multiadversary engagement? beyond marine corps aviation, what else can we -- secretary carter: i acknowledge
your comments and thank you for the contribution of your sons. mr. wilson: again, hey, we're in this together but the american people need to know it's a global war on terrorism. 9/11 must not be forgotten so thank you. general dunford: congressman, quickly, how we get in the position of marine aviation and across the joint force, there are similar stories i could point out. part of it was deferred modernization so we're flying aircraft now that are very old. part of it was back in 2013 we went through sequestration. we had a backlog of depot level maintenance. that caused aircraft and so forth. so these issues exist throughout the joint force and part of what we're arguing for is stability and funding, managing the operational tempo and getting the appropriate resources is going to be what we need to get out of this trough and it's going to take some years to be able to do that. mr. wilson: and we will be working with you. admiral john richardson testified before the senate armed services committee that iran had violated international law earlier this year by boarding sovereign u.s. vessels, detaining 10 u.s. sailors and seized an estimated 13,000 pages worth of information from laptops, g.p.s. devices and maps. would you agree with admiral
richardson's assessment? if so, would you please let us know what subsequent actions have been used to rectify this? secretary carter: i agree with admiral richardson. the actions of the iranians with respect to our sailors was unprofessional. it was outrageous, and i just caution you all, since admiral richardson is looking into the circumstances of this matter, but when you see something on television, you're looking through the lens of iranian tv and iranian propaganda. those sailors didn't deserve that. that's -- we would never treat people in that manner and to get to your question -- i can't say much about it -- but at the time we were preparing to protect our people. as soon as they were seized and we only stood down that effort when we were assured they were going to be returned to us safely. but it was outrageous treatment.
i think admiral richardson has stressed that and i would second that. but also i want to commend him on the treatment of the sailors. they're back home. the navy did what it needed to do, which is first of all take care of their health and welfare and is now learning the full circumstances that he has not completed his review of that. so i don't know what his consequences are of that, but this much we know which is that is not behavior that we would have exhibited in the reverse circumstance. mr. wilson: i also want to thank you, mr. secretary, for your efforts to promote public-private cooperation in cybersecurity but a challenge we have is recruiting and training. what are we doing to prepare for the continuing cyberwar? secretary carter: well, thank you for that question. you're absolutely right. the critical thing in cyber is people, good people. we're spending more money on it. we're making big investments in it but that's not the key. the key is are we able to get the people to flash out over cyberforce teams which we're building up at cybercomm.
the key is people. we're doing better to retracting attracting and retaining skilled, technical people. i'll be up at a physics class at west point as it happens tomorrow. seeing our wonderful people being technically trained in their cybercenter there. but in addition, let me say building bridges, which i'm trying to do, we're all trying to do between our department and the technology community is critical. historically the united states has drawn upon the great strength of this nation, whether it's satellites or missiles or the internet itself. and we need to keep doing that and i'm committed to doing that because that's part of the future. and the last thing i'll say is just a pitch for the role of the national guard and the reserve component in this regard. these -- i was up in washington state a couple of weeks ago. there is a reserve unit up there that consists of people who work at top-notch companies like microsoft all day on network defense and then in their guard
duty they're defending our networks. it doesn't get any better than that. a citizen soldier coming in in cyber. so there are lots of ways we're trying to make sure we have good people, but we are -- we are able to but that's the key is good people in cyber. mr. wilson: thank you. mr. thornberry: mr. takai. mr. takai: thank you. i'd like to talk about the rim of the pacific excercises. in your letters to senators mccain and reid, rempac would advance cooperative approaches to common security challenges, increase transparency and mutual understanding. and integrate china into a cooperative forum. you also say that you may modify our defense engagement decisions based on evolving circumstances. my question is, have you
recently evaluated china and have you made any changes to the invitation to the p.l.a. navy to participate in this year's rempac? secretary carter: we're constantly evaluating our relationship with china and china's behavior, including in the south china sea where i emphasize we have very serious concerns about their aggressive militarization there. they have an invitation to rempac, and we will continue to review that. but you might say, what's the logic for having them there in the first place. our strategy in the asia pacific is not to exclude anyone but to keep the security architecture going there and which everyone participates and that's what has led over 50 years to the rise of
japan, then south korea, then taiwan, then southeast asia and now, yes, china and india. we're not excluding china from that security architecture in which america plays the pivotal role, and we intend to keep playing that pivotal role. that's what the rebalance is all about. china is, however, self-isolating. its behavior is isolating itself in the region. that's why all these partners are coming to us and saying, can you do more with us, so not just big exercises with lots of parties like rimpac, but we have the japanese investing more. australians investing more. the philippines just inviting us once again to work with them more closely. even vietnam, india. so chinese behavior is self-isolating. and driving many countries to want to do more with us and we're doing more with us. but that's not the way china is going to continue to benefit as it has now for several decades from the security system and the open system that we the united states have underwritten now for many decades. mr. takai: ok.
so if china builds a runway on scarborough shoal reef, pacomm commander says beijing will have access across the south china sea. secretary carter, is china conducting or preparing to conduct reclamation at the scarborough shoals, which is only 120 miles from the philippines where our navy regularly operates? and would you say this behavior is consistent with u.s. objectives and the regional security environment? secretary carter: well, congressman, we're concerned about that prospect and is it consistent? no. it's not consistent. it's the kind of behavior that
we will be react to in our own military posture and deployments and all the ream national partners will react to. it will be self-defeating and self-isolating for china. i hope they don't do that but we're prepared for that eventuallyality should it occur. no, it's not a good thing for them to do that and they shouldn't. by the way, i say just to be fair about it, our policy is no one ought to be militaryizing these features. there are these disputes over maritime claims in the south china sea. our view is not to take sides on them. our view is everybody should resolve those peacefully and not militarize those features. china and anyone else who has done that but china has done it by far more than anyone else. mr. takai: i agree it's not consistent with u.s. objectives and like you say, no one should be militarizing that area. so my question then is, why then should we reward china with their aggressive behavior by including them in an event meant for allies and partners?
china's behavior is the polar opposite, as you mentioned, of u.s. objectives in the region and that's why i submitted a proposal to the ndaa that would prohibit china's participation in rimpac this year. i hope you and your department will reassess this situation and follow suit. do you have any comment? briefly, we have 10 seconds. secretary carter: we're constantly reassessing for that. i gave you the logic for that in the first place and we'll reassess it in accordance with your letter. mr. takai: thank you. mr. thornberry: mr. turner. mr. turner: thank you, mr. chairman. last week general millie stated before the committee, quote, that less than one third of the army forces are at acceptable readiness levels to conduct sustained ground combat in a full spectrum environment against a highly lethal hybrid threat or near peer adversary. obviously this statistic is undoubtedly alarming, and illustrates the risks associated with a less than ready military force is unacceptable.
all too often we speak about military risk in terms of numbers and percentages, as opposed to more real and tangible consequences. when asked a similar question last year about risk, then chief of staff admiral ray odierno said there is a link between that and loss of lives on the battlefield. odierno said people would die. while i criticize my frankly, it's clear what is meant when you say, risk. we're currently in the throes of our debate on the budget. people say we can increase risk, we can lower the costs, we can continue to accept sequestration
or cuts. ondunford, would you please help us better understand when you say risk? is there a direct correlation between risk and loss of lives on the battlefield? and also, is there a direct correlation between risk and winning knowing we now have issues with russia, china, north korea and certainly isis? can you give us an understanding of how the word risk translates? thank you. general dunford: congressman, yes, i can. there is a correlation of risk and casualties. when i talk about risk against our objectives, i'm talking about how long it will take and how many casualties we will suffer. those are two elements of risk that i refer to. you mentioned sequestration and i would tell you what the risk of sequestration is. the risk of sequestration and i'm talking the $100 billion that still looms out there, means we have to go back and
rewrite our strategy and i'm talking about the ends of our strategy. so when you talk about winning, there is a correlation, also, between our ability to win against the current adversaries we've identified, the peer competitors that we've identified, and sequestration. and my assessment is we will not be deal with the five challenges that secretary carter and i outlined in our opening remarks, russia, china, north korea, violent extremism. were we go to sequester level if if we were to go to this funding, i don't think we could satisfactory deal with those five challenges and by the way the challenges we can't foresee. mr. turner: secretary carter, when you were here last year, one of the things you said was it would be so important to get a two-year budget deal. many of us in congress, including myself who voted for it, believe we had a two-year budget deal. we believe that we'd be looking this year at the budgetary process with a fairly firm 574 commitment to base budget funding which would result in stopping the cuts that the department of defense has certainly -- has been put to. but when we received the president's budget, the president indicated there were
increased overseas contingency operations funding he would need for his operations, $3.4 billion for europe. additional dollars for isis. rather than putting those on top, meaning there are additional things the president would need to do, he took that out of the base funding of the department of defense. now, we're having in congress the debate putting those dollars back. and, again, it was unexpected because that was not part of the two-year budget deal that you advocated for and we voted for and we all thought we were operating under. could you please tell us what the consequences are of the cuts that would happen to the base budget of department of defense if we accept the president's budget? because clearly there are things you are going to not do that you will get to do if we put that money back. secretary carter: well, the president's budget reflects the bipartisan budget agreement.
the numbers in the budget are the numbers in the b.b.a. mr. turner: secretary carter, i know you know we completely disagree with you. congress's expectation was that you had a base budget of 574. i don't think you would have supported a two-year budget that would have a cut to the base budget in year 2017. my question is not really what's the deal. my question is, what are you losing? because you're obviously losing something from 574 are the reduction the president has taken of about $13 billion out of the base budget for o.c.o. cooperation. secretary carter: we have to agree to disagree about whether we budgeted to the b.b.a. but we believe we did. however, to answer what i gather is part of your question, namely, what did we do about the difference between what we said last year we intended to request this year and what we requested this year. i addressed that earlier. that was the $22 billion difference that because of o.c.o., and some other economic adjustments that went our way, like fuel prices and so forth, ended up being a net of $11 billion.
i explained how exactly what we did to adjust and mitigate risk associated with that $11 billion. we cut a lot of minor procurement programs. we scaled back some of our aircraft buys. we took it out of milcon. that's how we accommodated the $11 billion. we can tell you in detail how that was done. i also explained what we didn't do. we didn't go into military pay to make up that difference. we didn't go into the readiness recovery plans that the chairman has described and are so critical to restore our readiness, including full spectrum readiness for the army and the other services. we didn't cancel any multiyear procurements or other major acquisition programs. and we didn't change any of our force structure target -- number of ships, army end
strength or anything like that. we did what we did. we described what it is. we believe that we were able to mitigate that risk, and that's what we did. our biggest risk going forward, i'll just say it again. we said it many times. the biggest risk to us strategically in our defense is a return to sequestration, a collapse of bipartisan budget agreement and that is our biggest concern. mr. thornberry: mr. o'rourke. mr. o'rourke: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, last week we were able to listen to testimony from acting secretary of the army murphy and general millie and secretary murphy said, to continue this line of questioning of risk, said something to the effect of this budget places the army at high risk. and prior to that, general millie had made that connection explicit between risk and the loss of service members' lives who we will put in harm's way.
we reduce risk. we reduce that loss of life. it couldn't be more grave to make a decision on. my question for you is, is that level of risk comparable in the other service branches? and what is your guidance to us as the committee going into the ndaa, as a congress that might look in the near future at supplemental funding to further mitigate that risk in this upcoming budget year? secretary carter: well, first of all, let me completely associate myself with acting secretary murphy and what general milley said. that is our highest priority for the army in this budget, is readiness. they both made that clear. i concurred in that, and that is why the army's readiness recovery plan is fully funded in the budget.
what does that consist of? it gets back to the question earlier about full-spectrum. remember, we are coming from an army that was working extremely hard in iraq and afghanistan to meet the rotational needs of the counterinsurgency battle. they were being trained for that. now they are trying to restore their training to full spectrum for the other problems we highlighted among the five highlighted in this budget. to do that, they need to pass through their training ranges. those high-level training ranges have a certain capacity. we are building that capacity, but it will take some time for them to come out of it. it is not just going to take time. it will take budget stability.
that is why i keep him back to the need for budget stability. the other services have comparable readiness issues. they are different but comparable in the following sense. all are trying to make long-term plans to get better in readiness. in the marine corps, it is particularly aviation, as the chairman has pointed out. in the navy, it is principally a maintenance issue. they are working very hard on that. in the air force, it is very importantly, and i think the air force leadership has indicated this and the chairman mentioned this as well, the air force is trying to train for high readiness at the same time we are working them hard in the counter isil fight and elsewhere. there is a challenge in each case. we have plans to improve readiness, but they cannot be executed if we return the budget to sequester levels. >> let me ask a few follow-up questions to clarify.
are we doing all we can do within this budget request to mitigate that risk? if not, what do we need to do? i would be happy to join my colleagues and you in making the necessary changes. my understanding is risk is a term of art in terms of what the service chief submits to the chairman of the joint chiefs. i would like to know if what we heard from the acting secretary and chief of staff of the army reflected in the other service branches, yes or no. are there more resources than disclosed in the hearing last week? sec. carter: with respect to the first part, we have in this
budget for 2017 done everything the army wanted to do. i completely support them to get on the path to restore readiness. it cannot be done overnight. it is not a money issue. it is a money stability issue for the army. we have got to have that. does that translate into risk? yes. does that translate into risk for other services? yes, it does. does that reflect how we deal with risk in each service contribution to joint work plans? absolutely, it does. >> thank you. out of time. thank you mr. chairman. >> mr. rogers. mr. rogers: what priority do you assign to the department's nuclear deterrent mission? sec. carter: it is the bedrock of our defense. it is not in the news every day, thank goodness, but it is the bedrock of our defense. having a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear deterrent is bedrock priority.
we give it the highest priority. that is in operating the force currently and the subject was raised earlier about the need to keep a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear deterrent. the particular issue raised was the nuclear sub. that is a necessary and expensive evolution, but we have to do it because we have to retain a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear force as a bedrock.
>> that leads to my second question. do you see recapitalization as affordable in this budget? sec. carter: you can see right now that the submarine recapitalization in the decade of the 20's cannot be taken out of the rest of the navy shipbuilding budget without seriously crippling that shipbuilding budget, so we need to make room for that. we have been saying that for several years. we have to do that. the reason is the trident submarines are aging out.
it has to do with the stress on the hulls of submerging and coming up so many times. they have to be replaced. it is absolutely essential. we will need to recapitalize it. >> general dunford, are the joint chiefs convinced and unanimous we must revitalize the triad? general dunford: i am. i have not talked to the current group of chiefs collectively. previously when i was in the mean crimp the less marine corps, they unanimously subscribed to modernization of the triad. >> your predecessor undertook an assessment of the russian violation of the treaty. he concluded it posed a risk to the united states as well as to the security of our allies in europe. do you agree? >> i do. reflected in the budget is the capabilities to deal with that threat. >> we have been waiting over a year to be briefed on the military options you have in response to that. can you assure me we will get that, me and my staff? within the next three to four weeks? general dunford: i and my staff will come see you. >> i appreciate that. i yield the balance of my time. >> general dunford, a couple of years ago, i was in afghanistan and you were the senior american commander. we had 10,000 u.s. forces. in january, i was back in afghanistan. general campbell was operating under a force level of 9500 troops. now general nicholson is on the ground and has undertaken a
review of the situation to make his recommendations. if he were to come back after completing his review with a recommendation to change the force management level, i don't know who invented that term but it bothers me, but if he were to say we need to increase that fml by some unspecified number, if you were to say we need to lift restrictions we are operating under the say i cannot advise and assist below the core level, if you were to say i need the authority to target the network, would you support those recommendations going to the president? general dunford: he will provide recommendations. i can assure you my recommendation will be benchmarked against my assessment of our ability to meet our objectives. that is what i did on the ground
and what i do in my current position. >> so you don't know if you would support general nicholson's recommendations? general dunford: what i would make clear to the president is whatever capabilities i believe are necessary, and i cannot speculate if he has asked for an increase, but if he said these are the capabilities we need to accomplish the mission and i agreed with his assessment, i would forward to the secretary whatever recommendations are necessary to achieve the end state of that. sec. carter: let me second that. that is the way it works. >> thank you for being here this morning and for your service. both of you talked about the
threat of north korea in your opening remarks. i appreciate your leadership in maintaining the department's focus on current and emerging threats in the asia-pacific. i think north korea's launch demonstrated this threat. representing hawaii, this is something we are keenly aware of as the threat from north korea continues with their increased capabilities as well as people on the west coast who find themselves within range of their icbm's. secretary carter, it is the ongoing consultations with south korea. can you give us an update on those talks and share the
department's commitment to continuing to increase and enhance our missile defense capabilities of the homeland? in particular, in hawaii, we have a test site at the pacific missile range facility. i and others are pushing towards operationalizing that to increase that protection. sec. carter: thank you. thank you for the role the hawaii facilities do play in allowing us to develop and test our missile defenses. we are doing a number of things to react to and protect ourselves and our people from a north korean missile threat. i talked about fight tonight on the korean peninsula. we are absolutely committed to that. i pay attention to that every day. it is not in the newspapers every day. but our contribution to the defense of south korea is very
important and rocksolid. on the missile defense front, we are doing things at all ranges. to answer your question about thaad on the korean peninsula, we are discussing that with the koreans. principlereement in to do that. the reason for that is to be able to protect the integrity of the peninsula against north korean missiles of greater range. that is why we want to add thaad to what exists now, patriot. finally to the homeland, with the possibility of north korea having the capability to range the united states with icbm's, we began several years to increase the number of our ground-based interceptor systems and also its capabilities. we are increasing the number of those interceptors from 30 to 34.
we are improving the kill vehicle on the front end and adding radars, so we are doing a great deal. unfortunately, we have to because we see the action of north korea yesterday. >> i would like to shift to both of your comments with regard to ukraine and russia. much of the $3.4 billion from the european initiative goes towards military funding and training and so on and so forth. in particular in ukraine, there are many challenges they are facing in their government. specifically in the military, we have seen how there is no tank to tank competition possible as ukraine faces different threats coming from russia. can you speak to what kind of training we are assisting them with, with regard to
unconventional or special forces tactics and guerrilla warfare which can take a toll on what russia is doing there? sec. carter: we are doing that. that is part of the support we give to the ukrainian forces, both against symmetrical or traditional lines of combat operations and also helping them with this unique brand. i'm afraid to say, here to stay brand, of hybrid warfare we see in ukraine. general dunford: we have five conventional ukrainian battalions going through training and one special operations unit going through training. training will complete in september. i received an update as assessed as some of the most effective training we have provided to the ukrainians to date. much of that training is informed by russian behavior over the last few years and lessons learned in terms of integrating unconventional warfare and conventional
capabilities. i believe we are addressing that in our training program now taking place with ukrainian forces. heretofore, we trained just interior minister forces. this is the first series of other forces trained in this area. >> general austin, centcom commander, said distant capabilities will be necessary to take iraq and mosul including additional u.s. personnel, logistics, and other advise and assist teams. do you agree with general austin that additional troops on the ground are going to be necessary to take those cities? sec. carter: i do. we already have.
i expect us to do more because we are looking for opportunities to do more. general austin is right. of course, all of this is in support of iraqi security forces, but it includes support to the iraqi army, support to sunni tribal forces, support for police training. it is not just u.s., but i have been getting coalition contributions as well. as we assemble the forces to move on mosul, we will be doing more. when we have taken those requests to the president, as the chairman said earlier, he has consistently granted those requests. i expect there will be more in the future because we want to get mosul. we want to defeat isil in iraq. >> we've got to have morocca as well. let me turn to something more mundane but important. michael mccord, thank you for
the report from your group on where everything stands now. i don't want to go into the details, but thank you for getting that to the committee. can you talk to us about transition to a new, civilian leadership team next year and the impact that might have with respect to getting this audit process done by the deadlines? i worry the impact -- panetta started this deal. secretary, you are in favor of it. are there risks a new civilian team may not have the same emphasis? sec. carter: i am fully in support of it. and i thank you for your persistence and leadership in inducing us to do this. i also want to thank mike mccord and his team for their role in it. you ask about the future. my guess is this will continue because the logic is quite clear, the necessity is quite
clear, so i think that will be clear to people who come after myself and the chairman. i am pretty confident that will, certainly should. of course, you will have a role in helping remind them of this. there is a whole team behind this in all of our confines. i think they are committed to this work and will remain committed to this work. gen. dunford: i can speak from my current perspective and as a former service chief. i do believe it is part of our culture. we have been at this four or five years and have worked hard at it. frankly, i think the uniformed personnel involved and the civil service personnel involved in the audit are fully committed to laying on the table a clean audit. i don't think the civilian transition this year is going to change the objective of the individuals who have been working so hard.
most of the folks doing the heavy lifting are not going anywhere. they are clear in their commitment to get this thing done. >> i appreciate that. i hope our senate colleagues during the confirmation process will make that clear. the resources necessary to move this forward are in this budget? sec. carter: they are. >> general dunford, did you want to comment on the need for additional u.s. troops to counter isil and defeat them? gen. dunford: i fully support the comments general austin has made and the secretary has endorsed. we have from the beginning said we would recommend whatever capabilities necessary to maintain momentum and achieve the end state. i do assess it to be successful. we will need additional capabilities and will be prepared to provide that to the president. >> mr. mccord, i promised mr.
conaway we would do a briefing or hearing on the audit issue. we will be talking with you and the other folks about dates for that. it is something where mr. conaway will stay on our case until we see it through. i think a lot of us are committed to doing that. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. as a representative from the asia-pacific area, i would like to express my sincere sympathy for the people of belgium and family of the marine killed this weekend in iraq. i do know the representative already spoke on china and another representative referenced north korea. on guam, we are considered the tip of the spear in the asia-pacific region. i know the budget request contains nearly $250 million for
military construction projects. we are seeing tangible developments such as facility construction take place. i am asking secretary carter, what role the administration sees for guam in the broader strategy. should congress continue moving forward with construction on guam? it is often said budgets reflect priorities. you spoke to the armed services committee last week about continuing to support the asia-pacific rebalance strategy. would you say the strategy continues to be a priority of the administration? sec. carter: the asia-pacific is where half of humanity lives. it is where half of the economic activity of the globe is. it is the single region of greatest consequence for
america's future. we cannot forget that. thank you for everything guam does with us and for us and as part of us. guam is a critical part of the posture improvements and strengthening we are doing in the asia-pacific i mentioned the part we are doing unilaterally. guam is part of that. we do a lot with partners as well. there is so much momentum. part of that momentum is caused by chinese aggression. but we are determined to meet it. guam is an important part of that, so thank you. >> thank you, mr. secretary. you have done so much for us. i thank you for your contributions. i have another question for yourself or secretary mccord. it is estimated that the defense department spends twice as much on service contractors as on civilian personnel, even though they are often doing the same work. nevertheless, the department
budget request seeks to cut civilian personnel increase spending on service contracts. in this constraint fiscal environment, can we expect to see the department leverage the clear cost savings found in civilian personnel versus contractors? are we still waiting for a complete accounting of all service contracts mandated back in 2008? but we have still not received the report. sec. carter: thank you. i will say at the beginning and then turn it over to undersecretary mccord, we are committed to reducing the strength, particularly of headquarters staffs, both civilian and contractor and military. that is where those numbers come from. are we getting better at understanding how we are doing the spend for services contracting? yes, we are getting better at that. the chief management officer of the department along with mr. mccord work on that, and we are
committed to meeting those targets. they are part of our budget outlook. if we don't keep working on it, we will not be able to invest. it is an essential thing to do. let me ask it undersecretary mccord wants to add anything. mr. mccord: we have instructions internal and from congress to hold down civilian and keep commensurate with the drawdown of the military. we recognize that mandate. we are looking hard at service contractors. the dcmo is leading the effort. my turn is coming within the week to report within my own office, just like everybody else has to do, on what we are doing to review all of our service contracts to make sure they are still justified. history has shown the sunlight of looking drives the cost down. that is an important part of our efficiency effort with this budget. >> i only have a few seconds left. we still have not received the report. will we receive a report of some
kind? this has been due since 2008. mr. mccord: we will have to get back to you on the status of the report. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. whitman. >> thank you. thank you for joining us today. general dunford, in the previous hearings the armed house services committee has held, there has been a lot of discussion about readiness. concern about returning to full spectrum readiness is at the top of our list. i think general milley said it best when he said it does not have a constituency. i think that is why it is critical to make sure we are the constituency for readiness for the men and women in uniform. tell me are with the current budget situation, where we
project to be the best project to be on the path to restore readiness. we are at the point of setting conditions to restore readiness. tell me how far away we are and what milestones you expect to achieve. gen. dunford: we took input from all services as to what they needed in fy 17 along their path to restore readiness. that was a priority for the secretary. we fully resource for service plans for readiness restoration, keeping in mind we knew we could not get to where we needed to be in 17 because the other elements associated. with regard to where we are, three services have indicated fy 20 or 21 would be where they would get to it if we are not sequestered and we receive the resources we project received. the air force is a little outside of that because of the unique challenges they have. some numbers i have seen are as long as 2028, somewhere between 2024 and 2028. three of the services are five years away. one of the services may be seven years away from full restoration of readiness. >> let me get your perspective of one of the elements of the readiness restoration. that is aviation readiness.
one of the areas that concerns me is the assessments we are hearing about aviation readiness. it starts with the marine corps and what they are trying to do. general davis is doing all he can. it is a pipeline issue, how much we can do and how fast we can do it based on capacity. give me your perspective about where we are with aviation readiness across the service branches. and what can we do in the concept of full readiness to get there as soon as possible? gen. dunford: there are two issues. one is the state of the current aircraft we have. we had difficulty with maintenance associated with the last few years. we are in a trough with regard to the readiness of platforms in the inventory now. the marine corps is the most extreme. each of the services has similar
challenges with regard to ready basic aircraft readiness capability. we are confident units fully deployed have what they need. units at home station have a shortfall of ready aircraft grade the path to address the maintenance issue is resources. we deferred modernization so the aircraft we are flying is in the inventory longer than needs to be. the two are not unrelated, but they both come together. we need to fully fund our depot level maintenance and sustain the aircraft in the inventory. we need to stay on path with the modernization plan to address the long-term issue which will manifest in 2021 and beyond. >> i want to get perspective from you and secretary carter as far as the concept of readiness restoration and looking at how we get to the point we need to be. you bring up an important point. readiness as a term of art has traditionally represented training, operation, and maintenance. but i believe it should also
reflect the element of modernization because i think that is directly tied to readiness. i want to get your perspective on where you see modernization as part of the list of elements that must be attained in restoring readiness. sec. carter: for my part, you are absolutely right. training, maintenance are important parts of readiness. in some forces, the real answer is the replacement of an aircraft that is so old it costs
too much to maintain or we are simply not able to maintain them at the levels it needs so the guys do not have aircraft to fly. we are seeing that with respect to the ch 53 in the marine corps. to take another marine corps example, the f-18's, the older versions. modernization is a key part of restoring readiness. gen. dunford: i will be quick. what i would say is this. i have talked about fy 17 as being sufficient. it is not everything we needed. i subscribe to what the service chiefs have said. my greatest challenge as i look at the budget and future is the modernization that will come in 2019. 2021.
we talk about the nuclear enterprise. frankly, it is the whole inventory of joint capabilities. we have had four or five years of deferred revitalization. it took years to get to where we are. it will take years to get out of where we are. modernization is related to health and wellness. we are not as healthy as we want to be, but we can get the job done. we are not investing in the health of the organization today which will result in wellness challenges down the road which will read readiness. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to express my deep condolences and solidarity with our allies in belgium, across nato, and across the european union. this morning's terrorist attacks are an attack against civilized people everywhere who condone acts of terror. in your written testimony, you lay out five evolving challenges driving the department's planning and budget. i want to focus on the fifth challenge, countering terrorism overseas and protecting our homeland. you also outlined three military objectives to defeat isil.
you say the third is the most important, to protect the homeland. please provide the specific steps the department is taking to coordinate with partners to protect the homeland and what actions congress needs to take to bolster those initiatives. -- funding, legislative. you mentioned the development of the d.o.d.'s counterterrorism strategy. could you expand on that? gen. dunford: i will start and ask the chairman to reinforce. you are right. our mission of protecting the homeland, which we need to do at the same time we fight overseas to defeat isil, is one we share with the intelligence community,
law-enforcement at all levels. and also with homeland security. we work very closely with them. through northcom, we have a command that has precisely that mission, which is to protect the homeland by working with other interagency partners. we have plans to reinforce that if they request it. in an incident. we support them all the time with equipment, technology, intelligence, and so forth. it is a two-way street. it is a smooth working relationship. the chairman can elaborate on that. one thing i want to ask him to elaborate on is your second point about transregional. one of the things i'm looking at in connection with the goldwater-nichols issue is strengthening the role of the
joint chiefs of staff and chairman in precisely this way. we have combatant commanders. they are excellent but focused on particular regions. i look to the chairman and he of this,xcellent job gen. dunford: in november, we asked special operations command to take the lead because they did have connective tissue in each one of our combatant commands. to beginning development of a terrorism plan to counter extremism at large. we most recently had a meeting friday afternoon where i convened the joint chiefs to look at this. critical to that is having a
common operational and intel picture. that is the first part. the second is having an assessment process into a single vision the secretary of defense can see. as a secretary alluded to, then a process to make recommendations for the allocation of resources. much like we are trying to provide pressure across isil in iraq and syria, we are trying to do that transregionally at the same time. we are focused on that. you asked about what we are doing to improve interagency and international cooperation, which is very critical. we meet routinely now to do deep dives on issues like resourcing or foreign fighters or intelligence sharing. with regard to our partners, we
have a promising initiative in jordan where we are up to 15 nations that participate in an information and intelligence exchange to help just on the problem of foreign fighters. those collaborative processes are necessary. there are a lot of walls for us to break down to be effective. that is what we are in the process of doing. our transregional plan is designed not only to integrate capabilities but also with coalition partners. this plan will be born with a coalition perspective in mind. >> thank you. i'm very interested in the jordan initiative and will follow-up with your office if possible. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the panelists. he attack this morning reminds us we are still at war with an evil, determined enemy that must be defeated. earlier in the testimony today, we had discussion about estoring deterrents as well,
peace through strength. i am interested in hearing first from general dunford. the rand corporation published a study on building the army we will need. we are talking about the e.r.i. initiative. rand concludes we will need three armored brigade combat teams and associated forces for a credible deterrent. i am curious if you agree with the assessment and if not what you think is necessary. for both the secretary and chief, i have a bipartisan bill which stops the drawdown for the army and marine corps. that is the total army, national guard, army reserve, and active-duty marine corps and marine corps reserves. assuming that would come with the necessary resources for operations so we don't hollow out -
>> we are going to break away from this hearing and take you live to san diego, the convention center. senator bernie sanders is making his way to the stage to speak to a large campaign rally n san diego. how do you assess that would impact the risk and how might these additional land forces be a raid to deal with things such as the e.r.i.? >> i'll start. for the chairman on the two issues, first with the armored brigade combat teams, the chairman can elaborate, and he want to go into our operational plans here, but we are developing our operational plans for the defense of nato territory against both ordinary
attack and what i call earlier hybrid warfare, and we're developing those plans and the requirement that comes from them. i'm familiar with the particular report that you cite, but that is now a necessity as a consequence of russian behavior, as i said in my opening statement. with respect to army and marie corps, the chairman can speak to that also, and i'm sure the chiefs have as well, but both in the army and marine corps, their emphasis to me in the preparation of this budget has been on readiness, and they have plans to come down from the level that they were previously, and their priority is the readiness of the force not changing those goals. concur with that.
>> in the e.r.i., i think you have division headquarters, engineering equipment, and other units that are part of our stocks. we also pay for a constant presence with another brigade combat team that will be over there for exercises and assurance of foreigners, as well as deterrents. what the overall number is that we may have a year or two or three years down the road, i couldn't speculate. i don't think the rand study is wildly off base. but it's a function of not just looking at army presence and segregation, it will what about we needed to do, which is ensure our partners. with regard to the strength issue, congressman, my greatest concern is, in fact, that we have balance in the force, and we have not only the right force structure, but we have the right capability, and you hit it exactly right f. we're going to grow the force, we need to make sure that the infrastructure supports that, make sure the man power supports that, make sure the
equipment modernization supports that, and then the operation and maintenance dollars that will allow to us train that force as well. all of those have to be adjusted at the same time, otherwise the force gets out of balance, and that's why our focus this year was on capability over capacity. the reason is we felt like we were getting out of balance, where we didn't have the right amount of equipment in place to make sure the units we had were the highest level as well. >> thank you, general. let me say from my colleagues and for the american people watching at home, for the record, we are on path to draw down our land forces to preworld war ii levels. we had general mill here last week, and he describes the mission set, and given the changes to the assumption as high risk, and given the fact that we turn this off, it takes three to four years to actually get the combat readiness restored, i think this bipartisan bill, we need to summon the will, get the
resources, get it enacted. with that, i know my time has being pired. >> gentlemen, thank youer being here today. general dunford, you have increasing capability in the re john. in your assessment, is iran more or less capable today mill tailor speaking than early this the day the nuclear deal was signed? >> congressman, i believe that iran was spreading influences and capable of doing that before the agreement, and i think they're doing of doing it after the agreement. i haven't seen any measurable increase in their capabilities, but again, i'm under no illusion about what iran's intent is, what their capabilities are, what the current level of activity is across the middle east. >> have you seen any change in their behavior? >> i have not seen any specific change in their behavior, congressman, with the caveat that they were spreading influence before the agreement and they continue to do so. >> absolutely. now they have $150 billion to help them spread it. if there has been no change in the behavior, then certainly my
concern is that the world is not more safe, but less safe with them having that money. decades of animosity is not, and it will prevent they will from obtaining a new direction, a different path, one of tolerance and peaceful resolution of conflict. another quote, september 10, 2015, this is a victory for democracy, for american national security and the safety and security of the world. and then the budget presented, in pursuit of missile technology, continue to pose a threat to our interest and allies in the region to combat those threats, the budget continues efforts to hold iran accountability for its destabilizing behavior by advancing regional partnerships and planning to preserve the
operation for any contingent sifment one statement, september, a budget statement, five months later, secretary hagel, what is the defense department doing to mitigate what is a clearly growing risk from the iranian ballistic missile program? >> well, thank you for that, and you're right, the nuclear deal with iran was about their nuclear reference. and it implemented and will know whether it's implemented or not will keep them from having a nuclear weapon. that doesn't stop them from having other capabilities and exhibiting other behavior that concerns us. one of those is ballistic missiles. that's why we are strengthening our ballistic missile defenses in the region, in europe, to defend our friends and allies
there, our own forces there that are deployed there. that's why we have just a float. that's why we have sure. that's why our other partners procured those same missile defenses from us, and that's why we help israel with its defense against short-range rockets. both iron dome system and the david sling system, they're also, by the way, developing the arrow system against longer range missiles. we help them with that too. so we're doing a great deal to -- in the missile defense area in that region. >> if i can quote james clapper, the director of national intelligence, what he said on february 9, iran probably views the joint comprehensive plan of action as a means to remove sanctions while preserving capabilities.
we've not seen any indication, meenth iranians, have intent to pursue a different path. now, i think he is talking about with regard to mile an hour activities, not specifically with the nuclear, general austin's statement there. but just a few things that they've done since then. aside from what they did to our sailors, they continue to test ballistic missiles. they tested a new generation of missiles. the u.n. stated this test violated u.n. security council resolution. they launched another medium range missile. on march 8 of this year, iran launched several missiles around the country. the iranian general stated revolutionary guard does not ive in to threats.
secretary carter? >> with the nuclear agreement, i said at the time that it was constructed and hasn't changed our commitment in the department of defense at all. we remain postured and committed to defending our friends and allies, our own interests in the region, countering iran's influence in all of these areas. it's good to get it implemented, which it has been so far, at eliminating the nuclear danger. but for everything else, we remain full speed ahead and on course for what we are doing last year, the year before, and those programs are just building if they have anything. but we have a major commitment there. >> my time has expired, but i just don't understand why we wouldn't have included other threats in any type of deal that gave hem $150 billion.
>> i have service members leaving the military, and they're coming to me saying that this is dangerous. we are not able to engage in a way that will allow to us defeat our enemy. and i understand the need to try to keep down civilian casualties. i get that completely. but i have a concern that we're protecting our enemies more than we are those that we're sacrificing to try and save, and that's the real concern. throughout our history, we have people that have given their lives so that others can live. you know, what we see taking place, my concern is that every time we let an enemy go, because our very restricted rules of engage the, hundreds of thousands of innocents are killed. they become fatalities because of genocide. are we really winning? so i'd like to you address our rules of engagement that i'm hearing so many complaints about from our service members.
>> we assess and reassess them all the time, including on a strike by strike basis. so your question is very apt, very appropriate, and we try to balance those things. we do it every day, and we do it in a very practical way. >> what was the way we changed it? >> we modified them all the time. let me ask the chairman to explain. >> congressman, i'd like to distinguish between rules of engagement and collateral damage. those have been deflated a bit. i've heard the same thing you have, and i want to make clear. any time one of our young soldiers, sailors, airmen, marine is in harm's way, hostile intent, you can positively identify an enemy, they can engage. there's no restroiks our ability to do what must be done to protect ourselves. with regard to collateral damage, we make an assessment virtually every time we engage, and right now we have -- we
start in the baseline of zero civilians, but i'm here to tell you, if we have a target that justifies an expanded view of collateral damage in a particular case, we'll make that adjustment. to your question, when was the last time we changed, i can't assure you it was this morning, but it was sometime in the last couple of days where general austin made a decision to expand the casualties that might be incurred, given the importance of that target. what we tried not to do is make enemies of the very team we're trying to protect in places like iraq and syria, and we also try to make sure at the he happened of the day we don't become the enemy. we're fighting with our values, and at the end of the day, five, 10 years from now when this war is over, it will be because we won the war of values and war of ideas, not because we dropped the bomb in one place or another. >> i understand that's a very fine balance. i personally would give my life so my family could live if
that's what it came down. to my other concern comes to, are we in any way, shape or form trying to work out an international or system of justice for those that we contain? we're not dealing with a timothy mcveigh, and we're not dealing with world war ii situation, where we sign a peace treaty and return our p.o.w.'s. we're releasing people from guantanamo, some are returning to the fight. do we really have a formal system of justice? we're a country of laws, and we have a system of justice, and i think that's an expectation. i vanity seen us going in that direction. >> well, thank you. we have various possibilities for detention if we take a prisoner p. there's detention. there is detention by transfer to another country. question that, for example, in
and abu f the raid saef raid where they became the custody of iraq. and then we have the possibility of prosecution in article three, economy has also been exercised by the united states, the number of convictions. with respect to guantanamo, what you say is the reason why we're looking for, and i personally support this, a ace to detain those people who are in guantanamo bay, and let me be clear about this. there are people in gitmo that will not be safe to transfer to another location. i won't sign off on their transfer to another location. for just the reason you described. that's why we need an alternative detention facility for laws for detainees. we need to be extremely careful about that, and that's why i'd
like to find an alternative. >> i would also like to see a more clear system of justice rather than we could do one, two, or three things. but my time is expired, thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i want to thank our witnesses for preparing for the committee today. we certainly all agree and appreciate your service to the nation, and over the course of your very distinguished career, we thank you for your service. secretary and general, over the past decade, the department has had to reconcile the reality of reemerging great power and competition with the size and composition of our own military today. secretary, i highly command and am very supportive of your vision for the third offset strategy and look forward to seeing how that unfolds and look forward to being supportive as we make that transformation. beyond that, as we evaluate the architecture of our future fighting force, what should the
balance between the power and ready reserve capacity look like across the services? >> first of all, thank you for your support for our technology efforts and so forth. it's an important part of planning for the future. i said this is a budget that tries to turn a corner, and while dealing with today's threats, also look ahead 10, 20, 30 years from now, particularly to high-end potential opponents that we haven't had to worry about as much in recent years, so thank you for your support for that. and i'm sorry, the second part of your question, i'm sorry? >> sure. as we evaluate the architecture of our fighting force, what should the balance between a forward deployed power and reserve capacity look like across the services? >> i'll start, and the chairman
can pitch in. it's important to have forward forces, because they're the first edge of the response to a crisis, number one. and number two, their being there is a way of working with friends and allies so we don't have to do everything ourselves, so it's an important part of the building partner capacity capability. but what deters is the full weight of the american military that would arrive on the scene after those initial forces had engaged, and i think that's what -- when we talk about detering opponents, what deters them is not just what's right there in front of them, what deers it them is the full weight of the american military that will arise. so our surge forces are a critical part of the deterrent, and no one should measure our capability by what we have
forward presence. that's an indication of the story. chairman? >> congressman, getting that balance right is dynamic, and a sure you every year we gather up all the requirements for both the crisis response and assurance mission, as well as what the need for major operations plans, and so we make justments annually to make sure that we get that balance right between those forces that are forward deployed on a day-to-day basis, providing us access, making sure that we are prepared to respond to crisis, and also making sthure the residual capabilities and on the bench are prepared for a major contingency. when you ask what's the right balance, it's a constant process of evaluation to make sure we do exactly what you're suggesting we should do, which is get that balance right. >> thank you. going back to the third strategy, and again, very supportive of that, and technology is game changing and going to help provide us with the advantages that we need, especially on cybersecurity,
which has been a strong component on other technologies, but secretary, how do you believe we can best direct our investments and our policies to ensure that the progress that we made toward achieving the third offset strategy is the same into the next administration? >> well, i think in this and the strategic logic behind our investments this year, behind this 2017 budget is intended to point the direction toward the future. so we've crafted it carefully, and i think that both it highlights in terms of the five challenges, and what we have put in motion, especially including these technology efforts are so compelling that i'm confident that they'll continue into the future. >> and secretary, i'm one of
the opponents as a critical war fighting during my time in congress, and i believe it's imperative that the services understand the type of requirements that lay before them when it comes to much needed d.o.d. programs and weapons systems in order to avoid impact and scheduled delays. how are we managing security at the enterprise level and incorporating cybertechnology into program requirements sooner, and i'll have you answer that one for the record. >> secretary, if you would, please. >> thank the gentleman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. secretary and general for being here. mr. secretary, i'm just following up on the question, but are you aware of any discussions to close the naval station at guantanamo bay or transfer it to cuba? >> i'm not, no. >> general dunford, same question for you. are you aware of any plans to close guantanamo bay or transfer it to cuba? >> i'm not. >> mr. secretary, your department delivered a product in february entitled plan for
closing the guantanamo bay detention facility. however, this document also addresses specific elements required by the fy-16, therefore, this committee has previously stated the requirement has not been met. in this document, there were three options outlined for handling future detainees. they were on a case by case basis. number one was prosecution and military commission system or federal court. two, transfer to another country for an appropriate disposition there. or three, detention. yet in recent testimony, senior department officials testified -- and i'm referencing this article from stars and stripes -- they testified there is a requirement for long-term detention, but "they do not know where long-term prisoners would be housed," which i think this is very troubling testimony, currently we currently do have a location. my question is, fryar conducting operation, where capturing individuals is either intended or possible, do you have to determine which of these three options is
appropriate? >> generally speaking, we do and have, and that has worked out. and with respect to the report, if i can just respond to that, and the question of location, we were not specific about a location, and the reason for at is this -- we need -- the optimal location for a detention facility will depend upon several things that we don't know right now. for example, we don't know whether congress is going to respond to this idea. if we can do it quickly, then we'll probably pick an existing facility and try to build on that. >> is this facility in this country? >> yes. if we have a longer period of time, we may build a new facility from scratch. it will depend upon the number of detainees that we have and that we plan for. it will depend upon the
structure of the military commission's process, which is something which is set in statute, by the way. the very reason we have to discuss this with the congress, and we committed this plan, because let me be clear, it is forbidden by law to do this now. we need your concurrence. >> oh, i understand. i'm very familiar with the law. at reason that the plan calls for a dialogue between us and the hill is that we can't select the optimal design, and therefore, the optimal location, and therefore, fully do the cost until that conversation has been had, because you guys have a say in the design parameters of the ultimate facility. but i hope you'll give it consideration. i've said, and i believe this, i think it would be good to put his on a path to being dealt with by the time the administrations change. >> i understand, and a apologize for interrupting. you and i have talked about this for months, but two
things. i think the american people look at this as i do as a very dangerous precedent, that we're looking at potentially bringing these terrorists that have already killed americans back to this soil, which i think is reprehensible. but secondly, we are just reminded again with this bombing this morning in brussels that there is an active war on terror, and i've been sitting here three hours, and the first question the chairman asked was about strategy and things that we're supposed to hand over to the congress in february and still haven't, and i look at this as the same thing, we're wait waiting for some kind of detailed plan that the president said would be available. and my question is this, is it possible that due to such factors as bureaucratic obstacles, inability to negotiate with another country, that an opportunity to conduct a capture operation would be lost, or, in other words, would this issue of not being able to have a place because the president's desire to bring those terrorists here ever inhbt a question on these
aaccident that we're doing with isil and engaging with them, the issue of let's not go there because we don't know and we don't want these long-term prisoners. >> that's not occurred in my observation. let me ask the chairman. >> no, congressman, and frankly, that would be one of the first things that i would ask if we were asked to do something, is that going to be part of the decision making, to go after an individual, what's going to be the disposition of that individual? >> and what if the answer comes back? we know there's long-term situations now engaging. what if the answer comes back and says we simply don't know, because gitmo is an operation right now that is there. i thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, we're here today after tragedy, tragedy for belgium, tragedy for the world. isis has now taken responsibility for the murders this morning. we have a marine that was killed last weekend in iraq. i know you feel that personally.
we have a law that we passed called the national defense authorization act. it requires you to submit to the congress by february 15 a plan for defeating these people. i know you told the chairman that it was imminent. the statute says you shall do it by february 15. in your violation of the law. when an average american is in violation of the law, there are consequences. would you care to explain to the committee why there shouldn't be consequences for your failure to follow a law that was signed by your president? >> well, i already explained that that report will be in front of you imminently. >> secretary, that's not my question. the statute says you shall do it by february 15. do you not agree that you are n violation of that law? world cup -- we are going to submit that report. it's going to take some time >> i'm going to ask you again. do you not agree that in your violation of the law?
>> we will have that report to you shortly. >> i don't think that's a satisfy response. when we pass a law around here, it means something. now people's lives are at stake. you know that better than the rest of us. i don't think >> it is not too much to ask that you comply with the law. it is not sufficient you to say that it is imminent. you need to give us a plan now. let me ask you about another report. ,ou also are required to submit when the president puts forth his budget, a 30 year ship plan for the navy. you did not do that either. that is a statutory requirement. why did you not do that? plan,on't know about the we have a number of these plans. there are many of them congressman. let me ask mr. mccord if he knows about this. >> i believe that is in process
and nearing completion. >> that was supposed to be submitted with the president's budget request. the existing plan that we have calls for 52 combat ships. you have not amended that plan. you have requested 40. the secretary of the navy has told us he needs 52. he has told us there is no study to change that. his assistant secretary for acquisitions says there is no navy study right now that would change that. you have tried to unilaterally change it in the budget. what is your basis if you have no 30 year ship plan that updates the request, what is your basis for reducing the ship request from turkey to 240 -- from 52 to 40?
jointly, thecided requirement that we were going to buy 40 and not 52. the combat ship is successful, it is better than not mine countermeasure ships. 40 is enough. the reason we made that decision is that we believe and we are convinced that the money is better spent on ships that are more capable. we are looking at more capable and legal ships as well as more ships in the navy. >> the navy has no analysis on that. you have a report? where is it? >> we did a lot over the course of the last -- >> is it in the ship plan? >> we can provide that to you. we need ships that are more capable and more lethal and more
high-end. that is one of the themes of this budget. >> if that is so important, why would you not give us a new plan? >> i am sure the plant would reflect that. >> you're supposed to give it to us when the resident budget is submitted. these laws are important. people wonder why the people of america are angry right now, they are angry because people in washington feel like they are above the law. i am not above the law, and you are not above the law. give us a plan for the middle east and give us some analysis that is different in the navy announces on reducing the lcs request from 52 to 40. >> i will provide that. >> thank you. secretary carter, could you prioritize, i know you have a lot of priorities, low medium or high the fight against isis in the next five years.
we are glad to see that. this phase will have increased risk until we see if there is a proven replacement. in your budget you set the a10 will be replaced squadron by squadron. that is my first concern. we are yet to have a fly off. the a10 willg that be replaced by the f35. the air force leadership, when asked, basically said that the f35 will not replace the a10. that contradicts the requirements document. if you look at the air force five-year plan, it will put 49 a10 in the next few years. they are getting rid of that plane.
ofwill not see that outcome whether or not we will have a decrease in capabilities until a couple of years down the line. i am concerned about these contradictions. thatir force is saying this is the newest excuse as to why they need to put the a10 in the regard. we have hundreds of people playing the tuba and clarinet playing the uniform. if we really had a crisis, we would tell people to put down the tuba and pick up a wrench or gone. we are not at that place. i am concerned with these conflicting statements. do you think that if we put the a10 in the boneyard before we replacement, will there be a risk to american lives? >> what we need is the ability to deliver close air support effectively. it is not just a platform, it is
for training. as the advocate for close air support, i believe we need a transition plan. there needs to be replacement for the a10 before it goes away. >> that means you agree with not putting it in the boneyard before we assess a replacement? i can tell you without going into great wine is that we met with all the chiefs, we looked at the issue of close air support as a whole. capabilityng at what gaps will exist, how to mitigate them. if we cannot mitigate them, how does that affect the platform in the future. the interest in congress has generated quite a bit of interest in the department. i can assure you that i will look at this from close air support perspective to make sure that the joint force has what it needs. >> i want to say that i believe we need a conditional
replacement, not a time replacement. we need to make sure we're not putting more american lives at risk your thank you mr. chairman. you for of all, thank your service to our country. ourwould you assess combined arms capabilities today? we have been involved in counterinsurgency warfare for quite some time, though we are more in advice and assistance roles. i'm concerned about the fact that we have not trained for some time, and how would you do that? how would you make that assessment? >> there is no question that over the last decade in counterinsurgency operations, the ability to integrate combined arms at the high-end has eroded. we are three years into focusing
on that again. are we where we need to be? no. we are focused on restoring full spectrum readiness and making sure our exercises generate the capabilities we had 10-15 years ago. >> thank you. general, i'm and concerned that we would take a harder look at shifting more capabilities to the guard and reserve, and not allowing them to relax into being a strategic reserve. to maintain them as an operational reserve. if you look at their training requirements, potentially mobilizing them on it. periodic basis. i think we are not taking a hard enough look at being able to
more cost-effectively maintain our capabilities, but to utilize the garden reserve more. i wonder if you could comment on that. >> i concur with you that we need to do more thinking. we are doing more. i think the dichotomy between an operational reserve and a strategic reserve made sense in the cold war. improvede have versatility in the course of the years of the war in iraq and afghanistan. valuableving uniquely in some areas. i mentioned cyber earlier. that is very important. it is not exotic. being creative and effective about the use of the reserve component for strategic effect, but not as a strategic
reserve in the cold war sense. we are thinking that way. we need to continue to think that way. isone of my responsibilities global force management. i can assure you that in virtually every place that we are, we are fully integrated with the guard and reserve. the difference between strategic and operational reserve is that we would not use them to meet the requirements that we are meeting today. america, thesouth guard and reserve are down there doing partnership. beingn look at btcs mobilized. that they areou fully integrated in meeting all the missions that the joint force has. not just because it has helped to maintain effective reserve, maintainse we cannot our requirements without
integrating them. >> i do think that there are -- when i look at the personnel cost of interest between active-duty and reserve, they are extraordinary. --tever we can do to thank save money and maintain, we need to look at going forward. -- in yourestion view, this attack in belgium, is it a result of the fact that we are making gains in iraq and syria in terms of rolling back isis and isis needs to maintain the narrative to attract recruits and money from across the radical islamic world? is this a way to maintain that narrative like striking outside of their territory? say whether this
particular attack is a result of that. we anticipate that as we put increased pressure in iraq and syria, and that narrative arose ,ecause their resources erodes they will lash out. we would expect the kind of things we saw in belgium to happen in other places. they will balance conventional tactics which we have seen with guerrilla tactics in places like syria and iraq. they will maintain relevance and to continue a jihad. there's no question about it. >> thank you. i yield my time. me, i have just a couple of issues that i want to touch on. mr. mccourt, we have talked a lot about readiness and training and maintenance. is it true that virtually all the money for training and maintenance of aircraft is in the basic part of the budget?
>> that is correct. the vast majority. >> secondly, my understanding is that as you were putting together the budget request, over $5 billion of that request were savings,ion especially fuel savings. the price of oil goes up and down. a long. where you have to formulate your budget. my question is, as you look at it today, how do your sentience on the price of fuel measure against the reality of today? is it better or worse than you assumed? >> it is better today. are you talking about fy16 or fy17? >> 17. >> that fiscal year has not started, but will go for a year
after that were these prices have to hold for savings will be realized. they are lower today. >> i am a little concerned that their arms -- there are assumptions built into the budget where no one knows what the price of oil will be. i was wondering how it measured up. the chairman of the joint chief must read -- provide a risk assessment to the congress. we have heard from the service chiefs that they have provided that input. my understanding is that it has been done and it is sitting somewhere. do you have any clue on one that might come? >> we get complete it some time ago. we wanted to bring the chiefs
together to discuss it with the secretary. we did that one week ago on monday. that should be coming over right away. it is complete. we worked on it hard this time. you'll see a different organizational construct. we had to look at the organizations. we wanted to get at it in a meaningful way. the crosscutting risk of a joint force. while it has been a couple of weeks late. i hope you'll find it worth it. we kept it a little longer because we wanted to do a face-to-face the secretary, and we completed that monday. >> i think this is important. i will look forward to it. it is significant for the committee. if i can make an offer to both of you, it has been one of my goals, and i have not been as successful as i wanted to to reduce the paperwork burdens on
the department. so fewer reports and briefings can be done. report rathert -- than a recurring one. if you all want to submit to us reports that you think are superfluous or overly burdensome, get me that. i will definitely look at it. thent to continue to reduce unnecessary or less than thatsary paperwork burdens congress puts on the department. what is left we are serious about. time is important. report,d about the isis reprogramming requests, we do not have a strategy where it is happening. i am trying to have fewer things but be serious about the ones that we have. please tell me and get it to me about things you think are unnecessary.
at the same time, as you have heard today, i think there is frustration when the law is not complied with. open letteraw an signed by several dozen retired military and other notable names that the time was right to look at goldwater-nichols from 30 years ago. to be serious that significant changes are in order. they did not detail what those changes should be in the letter. i wanted to ask you your view. i know there is a fair amount of andrest about examining perhaps modifying the goldwater-nichols requirements. tell me where we are on that, if it needs to happen, and adjustments. >> i think there is an imperative for reform at this time.
i think it is a result in the change in the character of war. the character of war has changed. by that i mean, most of the crises that we have today are translational. they cut across most of commands. their multi-domain. -- they are- multifunctional. the nature ofed integration of the joint force. the requirements for the secretary to make timely decisions in the fight. the more fundamental areas we need to look at for change with regards to goldwater-nichols is making sure that the secretary does have the ability to make decisions in a timely manner and to integrate the force in that fight. estimation, in my the joint staff to take a different approach.
to ensure that we have the right strategies that we talked about today, so it is not just an aggregation of operations lands, but you have a strategic framework. i think the national military strategy needs to be refined in order to provide a framework. the final these of that and execution is the secretaries ability to prioritize resources for a fight that is going on with multiple commands at the same time. as we think of reform, we should focus on the character of war and what reforms are necessary to make sure we can fight in the 21st century. changes that i think we can reinforce and optimize the ability to meet some fundamental changes. i am prepared to make those recommendations. >> i would second that. that is exactly along the lines we are thinking.
that is what i alluded to earlier. we will need your support if any of that requires statutory change. those are the dimensions which i am looking to the joint staff and the joint chiefs of staff and the chairman given the changed nature of warfare. >> i am anxious to see what you suggest, even if it is not all of the reforms that some of these people are pursuing. with markup for this committee about one month away, for us to have time to look at it, we will need to see it probably -- promptly. >> i am planning that quite soon. it will involve the capabilities of the joint chiefs of staff while preserving the independent military advice that they provide to me and the president. >> thank you. thank you for all three being here today. the hearing is adjourned.
promise behind some of the most important decisions in american history. >> the constitution is a political document. it sets up the political structures. it is also the law. we have the courts to tell us what it means, and that is different from the other branches. >> it is the fact that it is the ultimate anti-presidential -- president -- precedent case. >> the spring court should make those decisions. that look at the course would establish the constitution as this agreement law of the united states. that is tonight at 10:00 eastern on c-span and cspan.org. >> investigative journalist and author moderates a panel on infectious diseases and the next pandemic. she talks about her latest book
on pandemics your she expands help large-scale livestock farms can threaten human health. in addition to crowding people together, we are crowding our animals together. we have more animals under domestic edition right now than in the last 10,000 years of domestication combined. them live in these factory farms. we have a million or more individuals crowded together. they are the animal equivalent of urban slums. allows pathogens to amplify and change. one example of that is avian influenza. those viruses normally live in wild water fowl. when these viruses drop into
these actor farms where animals are crowded together, they start to change. they mutate because that is what viruses do. they become more virulent. we have had problems with these forms of it in influenza that can infect humans. >> a discussion on emerging infectious diseases and the next pandemic tonight at 8:00 eastern. ♪ >> this week on "q&a," robert gordon, professor of economics at northwest university. he discusses his book "the rise and fall of american growth", looking at the growth in the american standard of living between 1870-1970. and whether we will ever see anything like it again. ♪